May 22, 2026 · 12:34 pm

Dismantling the Trinity: Jesus was never the only son.

“Say, He Allah is Absolute. That which is indepenent of all but which all things are dependent upon. He does not bring forth like kind nor was he from like kind. And there is no equivalent to His being Absolute.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)

﷽ 

We will demonstrate in this article (Allah-willing) that the New Testament never presents Jesus as the only Son of God. Where the New Testament cross references the Old Testament we will bring forth those texts.

This textual reality cuts straight to the heart of how the Trinity was formulated in the early Church. If the New Testament leaves room for other “sons of God” (whether angels, kings, or cosmic beings) and never uses mathematically exclusive language to isolate Jesus as the solitary son, it creates a massive structural and linguistic problem for Trinitarian theology.

It Explodes the “Eternal Generation” Framework

To protect the Trinity, early Church theologians (like those at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD) had to invent a philosophical concept called “Eternal Generation.”

They argued that Jesus is a Son not because he was created, but because he eternally “flows” from the Father, sharing the exact same divine substance (homoousios). To make this work, Jesus had to be the only one.

The Trinitarian Dilemma: If the text allows for other natural or heavenly beings to hold the status of “a son” without distinct legal qualifiers like adoption, then “Son of God” ceases to be a title of exclusive divine essence.

If an angel or a human king in the Old Testament is called a “Son of God” using the same basic Hebrew or Greek categories, then the title “Son” no longer automatically proves that Jesus is God. It lowers the title from an ontological statement (what Jesus is by nature) to a functional statement (the role Jesus plays).

This of course does not mean the end of Christianity. Allah (swt) tells us that they (along with the Jews) will be in schism until the day of judgement.

“And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 5:14)

Christianity has three last stages until it is completely irrelevant.

  1. A shift in the West from Protestant tradition to Catholic Orthodox and Eastern Churches.
  2. Marcionism we are entering that stage. By attacking Islam many Christians are essentially attacking the Old Testament.
  3. Full Marcionism. Eventually a complete break with the Old Testament. This serves a number of purposes. It makes Christianity easier to defend from a moral and ethical angle. Also, it will distance themselves from any grip that Jews or Judaism (Zionism) has over them.

The first four pieces of evidence we will advance to show that Jesus was never the only son.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only (monogenē) Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)

“…because he has not believed in the name of the only (monogenē) Son of God.” (John 3:18)

“In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only (monogenē) Son into the world, so that we might live through him.” (1 John 4:9)

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only (monogenē) Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)

At first blush one may be excused to think that these texts argue that Jesus is the only Son of God. However, there is a descriptor that precludes this altogether. He is the monogenē. Which is one of a kind.

To give an example. A father could have three sons. Two of the sons are twins. Therefore the son who does not have a twin is unique. He is one of a genes. He is one of a kind. He is never the only kind. He is never the only one.

Further evidence.

“By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only (monogenē) son.” (Hebrews 11:17)

The example of Isaac being called Abraham’s monogenēs despite Abraham having other sons (Ishmael and Keturah’s sons) proves that monogenēs does not mean “only one numerically.” It means “unique” or “one of a kind.” The Trinitarian attempt to use monogenēs as proof of exclusive, solitary divine sonship collapses once we see that the same Greek word is used of Isaac, who was plainly not an only child.

The case of John 1:18

“No one has seen God at any time. The only (monogenēs) Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” (John 1:18)

The above text has a variant reading. Christians are not sure which is the original. The variant reading would be: “No one has seen God at any time. The only (monogenēs) God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.”

Neither reading would be strange knowing what we know about henotheism.

Never the Only God: How the Bible Preserves Henotheism and the Qur’an Protects Monotheism

One reading is that a unique Son of God made known the Father. The other reading would be one of the many gods made known the Father (god).

Our second set of evidence from John.

“Do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’ (John 10:36)

Context.

“Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?” (John 10:31-36)

Let us deal with the major problem of the error of Jesus. Jesus is making a blunder by misquoting the Tanakh. There is no such statement written ‘in your law’. It is found in the Psalms.

“I had taken you for divine beings, attendants *attendants Lit. “sons.” of the Most High, all of you;

Source: (https://www.sefaria.org/Psalms.82.6)

“I said, “You are angelic creatures, and all of you are angels of the Most High.”

Source: (https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16303/jewish/Chapter-82.htm)

Obviously Judaism trying to pretend that it is a monotheistic tradition. Instead of henotheism which it plainly is. It is struggling with how to render the above text.

Jesus here is trying to reason with this particular group of Jews. That there are many in the divine assembly called gods. The Jewish god is simply the chief god among them. In this worldview if there are many gods or many called gods then there is no problem if Jesus is a son among sons.

Jesus and the blind man. Son of God/Son of Man.

“Then they turned again to the blind man, “What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened.” The man replied, “He is a prophet.” (John 9:17)

The variant reading of John 9:35

“ Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” (John 9:35)

In other variant readings it has ‘Son of God’.

So given our proof initial evidence that we have laid out from the five proof text it must then follow that this is the case for everything that is ascribed to the author called ‘John’.

This would include the following text:

1 John 3:8
1 John 4:15
1 John 5:5
1 John 5:10-13
1 John 5:20
John 20:31
John 11:27
John 1:49
John 1:34
John 11:4
John 5:25
Revelation 2:18

“But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31)

Given what we have shown — that Jesus is a son of God, and that John’s Gospel never presents Jesus as the only son of God — we should then expect if the New Testament is theologically in harmony then this should be the position of the entire New Testament.

Is there any text in the New Testament that explicitly describes Jesus as the exclusive, singular Son of God, to the total exclusion of all others?

To find that, we have to move away from the word monogenēs and look at how the Greek language handles the definite article (“the”) and the concept of absolute singular inheritance.

In Greek grammar, when a writer wants to emphasize absolute exclusivity—that someone is the specific, singular entity to the exclusion of all others—they use a structure called the “double article.”

We see this explicitly in the confessions of Peter and Martha, and during Jesus’ trial. They do not say “a Son of God.” They use the Greek definite article ho (the) before both “Son” and “God.”

“You are the Christ, the Son of the God, the living [One].” (Greek: Σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος) –(Matthew 16:16)

“You are the Christ, the Son of God, the [One] coming into the world.” (Greek: λέγει αὐτῷ, Ναί, κύριε· ἐγὼ πεπίστευκα ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐρχόμενος)-(John 11:27)

By placing the definite article ὁ (ho / “the”) directly before “Son,” the Greek text moves from an indefinite category (“a son”) to an exclusive, particular title (“the Son”).

However, recall what we have already received from John. That Jesus is one of a kind and not the only of his kind. So John 11:27 has to be harmonized with this. Given that Matthew 16:16 is given a similar example it too has to be harmonized with this.

Let us say that the father’s name is David. So let us say that one of those sons is named Tommy. Tommy is handicapped. So if we say, “You are the Handicapped the Son of the living David.” This in and of itself does not deny other sons. It means the other sons do not have this descriptor.

By adding a unique descriptor (the Christ) or a unique modifier (handicapped) isolates that specific individual within their role, but it does absolutely nothing to grammatically eliminate the existence of other sons.

The evidence of Hebrews 1:5

“For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have (gennaō) begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says.”

This shows that the author is addressing what must have been a prevalent belief that angels are sons of God.

“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.” (Job 1:6)

Source: (https://biblehub.com/job/1-6.htm)

This author still has not addressed how Jesus is the only Son of God. The author is simply saying how this particular son is special. Even in the text itself is a glaring admission. “I will be to him A Father and he will be to me A son.”

This is a quote from

“I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.” (2 Samuel 7:14)

This text establishes four points.

That God will be the father of Jesus. Not that currently is or has been from eternity past.

That this God is ‘a’ father to Jesus. Not his only one. This is why Jesus had at times to distinguish which father he was talking about. “the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21)

That Jesus will be a son. Not that Jesus currently is or has been from eternity past.

That Jesus is ‘a’ son. Not that Jesus is the only son. The New Testament never once claims that Jesus is the only Son of God.

Not only is the text in Hebrew 1:5 quoting (2 Samuel 7:14) but it also quotes Psalms 2:7.

“I will tell of the decree: The lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have (yə·liḏ·tî·ḵā.) begotten you.” (Psalm 2:7)

This text does not mean that Jesus is ontologically the Son of God. Rather he gets taken or adopted as a Son of God. Saying Jesus is ontologically the Son of God means he is the same nature, being, and essence as God

That Hebrew word in Pslams 2:7 is yalad.

yalad: To bear, bring forth, beget

Source: (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3205.htm)

“Say, He Allah is Absolute. That which is independent of all but which all things are dependent upon. He does not bring forth like kind nor was he from like kind. And there is no equivalent to His being Absolute.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)

Originally this text was addressed to king David who was a grown man. King David is not ontologically the Son of God.

So ask any Christian if David is not ontologically the Son of God what does it mean when it says that God has begotten him to a grown man?

Because an adult king cannot be metaphysically born on his coronation day, the word “begotten” (yalad in Hebrew, gennaō in Greek) in royal contexts means exaltation to an office, not the generation of a nature.

They say:’ ‘The All-merciful has taken to Him a son.‘ Glory be to Him! Nay, but they are honoured slaves.” (Qur’an 21:26)

“And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died, he said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!” (Mark 15:39)

“The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.” (Luke 23:47)

The variant reading of Acts 3:26.

“Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” (Acts 3:26 King James Version)

“To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.” (Acts 3:26 New King James Version)

Notice that the King James Version calls Jesus “his Son”, Whereas the New King James Version calls Jesus “His Servant” and whenever you see that word “servant” in the New Testament, it means slave.

So we have established from the theology of Hebrews 1:5 the following:

Jesus was never the only Son of God.

Jesus was never the Son of God from eternity past.

The text undermines the classic Trinitarian concept of “Eternal Sonship.”

If Hebrews is to be a theologically consistent text then this must be the theology for the following text:

Hebrews 4:14
Hebrews 6:6
Hebrews 10:29

We have established using the four proof text in John’s Gospel as well as the statement in Hebrew 1:5 to prove that the New Testament never calls Jesus, monos huios (only son).

Psalms 2:7 when does Jesus actually become a Son of God in the New Testament?

Paul believed that Jesus was declared to be a Son of God by his resurrection from the dead.

There is no evidence that Paul believed in the virgin birth of Jesus.

Paul did not believe that Jesus was a Son of God from eternity past.

We will assume that Paul is the author of the following text under discussion.

“Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed (spermatos) of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” (Romans 1:3-4)

“…τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει… ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν…”

Literal Translation: “…the [one] designated/decreed/appointed Son of God in power… by the resurrection from the dead…”

Paul believed that Jesus was the literal seed (spermatos) of David. The mention of ‘sperm’ (spermatos) is difficult to reconcile with a virgin birth narrative. Paul also did not believe that Jesus was an eternal Son of God. Jesus becomes adopted as a Son of God by his resurrection from the dead.

“But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son [singular, definite], born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” (Galatians 4:4-5)

Again. Paul mentions Jesus born of a woman. No mention of a virgin birth.

At first glance, a Trinitarian reading jumps to the conclusion that “God sent forth his Son” means a pre-existent divine being was sent down from heaven. However, when we apply the legal, covenantal framework of Davidic sonship, a completely different, highly unified picture emerges.

In biblical language, when God “sends” or “sends forth” someone, it routinely describes the functional commissioning of a human agent or prophet to a specific task. It does not imply that the person existed in heaven before they were born.

Consider how the Gospel of John uses the exact same concept:

“There was a man sent from God, whose name was John [the Baptist].” (John 1:6)

Nobody reads John 1:6 and concludes that John the Baptist was a pre-existent eternal being who descended from heaven. He was “sent” because he was given a divine mission.

Once again look how Paul applies Psalm 2:7. He applies it to the resurrection of Jesus.

“And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm: ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.'” (Acts 13:32-33)

Just as Jesus is an adopted son of God Christians can also become adopted sons/daughters of God.

“He predestined us for adoption as His sons through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will.” (Ephesians 1:5)

“And: “I will be a Father to you, and you will be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.”
(2 Corinthians 6:18)

Given what we know from Pauls theology concerning Jesus and his sonship this would apply to the following text:

Galatians 2:20
2 Corinthians 1:19
Ephesians 4:13

We further see that Jesus is not the only Son of God but rather an older brother in a larger divine family. We will discuss this now.

The Problem of “Firstborn” (Prōtotokos)

“For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn (prōtotokon) among many brothers and sisters.” (Romans 8:29)

“And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn (prōtotokos) from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.” (Colossians 1:18)

Because the New Testament avoids calling Jesus the monos (mathematically only) son, it frequently uses another word that causes immense trouble for Trinitarian theology: Prōtotokos meaning “Firstborn.”

For a Trinitarian, “Firstborn” has to be heavily explained away as a metaphor meaning “supreme ruler” or “preeminent.” But if you pair prōtotokos with the grammatical reality we discussed—that the New Testament doesn’t textually isolate Jesus as the only son—the natural, plain reading of the text shifts dramatically. He looks less like a member of a co-equal Trinity and more like the elder brother or the first son in a larger divine family.

When you read the Nicene Creed (the definitive formula for the Trinity), the language shifts radically away from the flexible, conversational style of the New Testament into rigid, Western, mathematical exclusivity:

“…And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds… Very God of Very God… being of one substance with the Father…”

By noticing that the New Testament itself doesn’t actually say this, you expose a massive historical gap. The Trinity cannot be read straight off the pages of the Bible using strict grammar; it requires a massive philosophical overlay that was forced onto the text centuries later to make the language exclusive.

Psalms 2:7 when does Jesus actually become a Son of God in the New Testament?

The baptismal announcement.

“And behold, a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’ (Matthew 3:17)

Note: Matthew records the voice speaking in the third person, as a public declaration to the crowd.

“And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:11)

Note: Mark records the voice speaking in the second person, addressing Jesus directly.

“And the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.’ (Luke 3:22)

Note: Found in the oldest Alexandrian codices like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, matching Mark exactly.

The Western Textual Variant for Luke 3:22

In a major ancient textual branch known as the Western Text—most famously preserved in the 5th-century Greek/Latin manuscript Codex Bezae (Manuscript D)—the voice from heaven does not say “with you I am well pleased.” Instead, it quotes Psalm 2:7 word-for-word:

“…and a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you.'” (Greek: υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε)

“And the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you.” (Luke 3:22)

Prima Qur’an comments: First it should be noted that none of the above text speak about an only son. They are texts that talk about a particular son.

The case of Matthew.

Matthew begins his gospel with a detailed genealogy and a virgin birth narrative (Matthew 1:18–25). In Matthew’s theology, Jesus’ identity as a Son of God is established biologically and ontologically from the very moment of his conception by the Holy Spirit.

Because Jesus’ identity is already a settled, historical fact before he ever reaches the Jordan River, Matthew subtly alters the baptism text:

Matthew 3:17: “This is my beloved Son…”

The voice does not address Jesus (“You are”). It addresses the bystanders (“This is”). It is a public revelation to the crowd, confirming what the narrative has already established to the reader: this man is the miraculous, virgin-born Son. Jesus does not need to be informed; the audience does.

The case of Mark.

Mark’s Gospel has no virgin birth narrative and no childhood stories. It begins abruptly with Jesus as an adult walking out of Nazareth to be baptized.

Because Mark lacks a biological explanation for Jesus’ sonship, the baptism scene carries the entire theological weight of his identity. And as we pointed out, the grammar reflects a completely different, highly personal experience:

  • Mark 1:11: “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

In Mark’s presentation, the voice speaks directly and exclusively to Jesus. Textually, this reads as a personal awakening or an official investment of an office.

If Mark intended his readers to believe Jesus was the uncreated, pre-existent Son from all eternity, starting the book with an adult man who needs to be personally told by a voice from heaven, “You are my Son,” is a highly counterproductive way to write. It perfectly aligns with an Adoptionist framework, where Jesus is chosen and appointed at this exact moment.

The text of Mark 1:1.

Textual critics have discovered that the phrase “the Son of God” (υἱοῦ θεοῦ) is entirely missing from some of our oldest, most important uncial manuscripts, most notably Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Koridethi

Sample of a Greek Bible manuscript, Codex Sinaiticus (4th century AD), Mark 1, 1 – 3 and 9 – 10. Facsimile, published in 1862.

Source: (Codex Sinaiticus column detail of Mark 1:1. Source: ZU_09 / Getty Images)

Scribes were notorious for “orthodox corruption”—adding titles of high christology to verses to combat heresies. It is highly likely that an early scribe looked at Mark’s abrupt opening, realized it lacked a virgin birth or any explicit declaration of divine sonship until the baptism, and “corrected” verse 1 by adding “the Son of God” to make the book sound safer and more orthodox from the very first line.

If the original text of Mark simply read, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” then Mark does not introduce Jesus as the Son of God until the voice tells him so at his baptism.

Luke’s Harmonizing Strategy

Luke presents the final piece of the puzzle. Like Matthew, Luke includes a virgin birth narrative (Luke 1:35), where the angel explicitly tells Mary that the child will be called a Son of God because of the Holy Spirit’s oversight.

Yet, when Luke gets to the baptism, he preserves the second-person address from Mark (“You are my beloved Son”).

This creates the exact structural tension that led to the creation of the Western Text variant we discussed earlier (“Today I have begotten you”). Early scribes working on Luke’s text recognized that if Luke already had a virgin birth narrative, keeping the baptismal formula as a time-stamped coronation (“Today I have begotten you”) created a blatant contradiction.

How can he be begotten at birth and begotten at baptism? To smooth this over, the Alexandrian textual line likely scrubbed the “Today” variant out of Luke to align it with Matthew’s safer, static theological framework.

The text of Acts 8:37.

“And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.” (Acts 8:36-38)

“Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”  Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.” (Acts 8:36-38)

There are two different manuscript traditions. Christians are not certain as to which of these are more correct.

The text of Matthew 16:16 and the parallel accounts.

“Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16).

Notice his response in the parallel accounts.

“You are the Christ,’ Peter answered.” (Mark 8:29)

“Peter answered, ‘The Christ of God.” (Luke 9:20)

Here is the logical syllogism:

  1. The three accounts describe the exact same historical conversation.
  2. Mark and Luke record Peter saying only “The Christ” or “The Christ of God.”
  3. Matthew expands this to “The Christ, the Son of the living God.”
  4. Therefore, either the gospels flatly contradict each other on what Peter actually muttered, OR “Christ” and “Son of God” are being used as functional synonyms.

And since “Christ” (Christos / Mashiach) literally means “Anointed One”—a political, royal title for an appointed human king—then “Son of God” in Matthew’s confession must mean exactly the same thing: the anointed one.

If anyone doubts our reconciliation—that “Christ” and “Son of God” are simply synonyms for an appointed ruler—Matthew himself proves our point later during Jesus’ trial.

Look at the exact wording the High Priest uses to force Jesus under oath:

“I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” (Matthew 26:63)

The High Priest is not a Christian. He does not believe in the Trinity, nor is he asking Jesus a metaphysical question about his eternal divine essence. He is a Jewish judge asking a political, messianic question: “Are you claiming to be the Anointed Davidic King (the Christ), who is entitled to the royal title ‘Son of God’ via the covenant of David?

Lastly, as a bonus, we want to discuss Isaiah 9:6 

The popular Christian version of Isaiah 9:6 is not even in Septuagint!

“For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will rest on his shoulders. And he will be called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)

Source: (https://biblehub.com/isaiah/9-6.htm)

This is what you are used to seeing, correct? Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

https://biblehub.com/sep/isaiah/9.htm

“For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.”(Isaiah 9:6 -The Septuagint– The Holy Spirit’s Fav Version)

Where are all these other names?

So who is upon the truth? Are Latin Roman Catholics, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox upon guidance for trusting a text that does not make Christological claims about Jesus, such as calling him (Jesus) ‘The Everlasting Father’? Claims that contradict the idea that Jesus is not the Father?

Or are those Protestants who trust in the Masoretic text (although they still give it a Christological bent) upon the truth?

Only one person in the Jewish scriptures is referred to as “mighty god” and his name is Hizkiyyahu or, Hezekiah (mighty god). Jewish names, like many Muslims’ names, are what one may call a theophoric name.   The 1st century Christians did not use Isaiah 9:6 for Christological purposes. Latter ones did, though. Changing the Hebrew perfect tense to future tense. 

In conclusion, the New Testament never says Jesus is the only Son of God.

It calls Him monogenēs (unique), prōtotokos (firstborn), huios (son) with the definite article, but never monos huios (only son). The Trinitarian reading requires importing a philosophical exclusivity that the text does not supply.

It does not take a genius to tell you this breaks the Trinity.

If you enjoyed this article you may be interested in the following:

Adoptionist Theology: How did Jesus Become The Son of God?
Is Christ Jesus God?

May Allah Guide the Christians to the truth so that they do not burn in hellfire.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

May 21, 2026 · 2:04 am

What does Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq really believe? Murderers and Rapist going to heaven?

“And give full measure when you measure, and weigh with an even balance. That is the best way and best in result.” (Qur’an 17:35)

﷽ 

Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq doing what he does best which is giving the Daw’ah on the streets of America. Cannot underscore how important this is. Calling people to Islam IS the work of the Prophets. It is the best way. It is a collective obligation upon the Muslims. So may Allah (swt) continue to bless Shaykh Uthman in that regards.

However, equally important is to call them to the Qur’an and Sunnah. To call them to sound doctrine.

Listen to the interaction in the video above:

Shaykh Uthman says: “Let me ask you a question o.k? If you don’t accept Jesus can you go to heaven?”
The woman replies, “No.”

Shaykh Uthman says, ‘O.K Let me ask you a scenario, right?” “And, and so. There’s a girl doesn’t believe in Jesus. Let’s say she’s Hindu right? 14,15, 18 year old girl, and a man, a Christian man rapes and murders her. Rapes her cuts her up cuts her throat but he believes in Jesus. Who goes to heaven?”

Woman inquires, “She does not believe in Jesus?”  Shaykh Uthman reiterates: “She does not believe in Jesus.”

The woman states: “If she has not like received or trusted (Shaykh Uthman inputs “yes”) due to the fact (unintelligible).”

Shaykh Uthman says, “She does not believe in Jesus she’s Hindu.”

The woman responds: “Than she is eternally separated from (unintelligible)”

Shaykh Uthman says, “she’s gonna go to hell, and he, the murderer, rapist is gonna go to heaven?” “You guys, you guys I can’t believe your telling me this. I cannot believe you’re saying this. And I’m really sad.” “You’re saying that rapist, murderer is gonna go to heaven and the poor innocent girl that got raped and murdered is gonna go to hell, going to be separated from hell/heaven and go to hell!?”

The woman responds: “She doesn’t know the Lord, yes.”

Shaykh Uthman responds: “That is that is you can’t believe that?!”

However, what would his response be if someone asked him, “What would your response be if a Muslim did that?”

What is the Shaykh response to his belief if this rapist/murderer was a Muslim?

Now for the Christian who likes to speak about the justice of God Shaykh Uthman’s question does present a conundrum for them. Now the more learned Christian may try and reply using the following text:

“For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.” (Jude 1:4)

But the point still stands. No one is saying that grace is a license for immorality; however, this Christian man in a moment of passion being weak in the flesh raped this woman and killed her. However, according to the Christian woman’s reasoning that man will go to heaven.

Now, the best Shaykh Uthman can do is say that the Muslim rapist and murderer will take a detour to hell (for an unspecified period of time) however, he too enters heaven.

Now what would have made this more interesting is if it was asked what happened if the murderer/rapist died immediately after the incident (as a Christian/ as a Muslim). The Christian response has been given. However, the Muslim response?

You may wish to read the following:

The Ibadi View on Muslims Who Commit Major Sins Without Repentance
Heaven Is For The Righetous Solely! – His Eminence Shaykh Masoud Al-Miqbali
Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq: “If you pray with your hands down, your salah is still acceptable.”

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

May 20, 2026 · 5:24 am

Heaven Is For The Righetous Solely! – His Eminence Shaykh Masoud Al-Miqbali

“Shall We treat those who believe and do good works as those who spread corruption in the earth; or shall We treat the pious as the wicked?” (Qur’an 38:28)

﷽ 

His Eminence Shaykh Masoud Al-Miqbali (r) with a wake up call to the believers and the seekers of truth.

A person that dies upon continuously committing major sins.How is such a person?

Describe them for me.

Is he a transgressor (fājir)?
Allah says: “And indeed, the transgressors will be in Hellfire.”They will burn therein on the Day of Judgment, and never will they be absent from it.” (Qur’an 82:14-16)

Or is he defiantly immoral (fāsiq)?
“But as for the defiant (fāsiq), their refuge is the Fire.” “Every time they wish to come out of it, they are put back into it.” (Qur’an 32:20)

Is he disobedient (ʿāṣī)?
“And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger — then indeed, for him is the Fire of Hell; they will abide therein forever.” (Qur’an 72:23)

Is he a hypocrite (munāfiq)?
“Indeed, the hypocrites will dwell at the lowest levels of Hellfire, and never will you find them a helper!” (Qur’an 4:145)

Is he a garner of sins?
“Nay! Rather, those who garner sins and are encompassed by them — they will surely be companions of the Hellfire, forever residing in it.” (Qur’an 2:81)

Nothing is left — transgressor, defiant, disobedient, hypocrite, garner of sins. The Qur’an judges all of them with permanent dwelling in Hell!

There is nothing left except that you include this person among the righteous (muttaqīn). Is that possible?

Such a person is righteous? Huh?
Why do you not answer (audience)? Is he righteous or not? (Audience:) “No!”

“Such is the Garden which We gave as inheritance to those of Our servants who were righteous.” (Qur’an 19:63)

If he is not righteous, then there is no Heaven for him!

You may also wish to read the following:

What sins do to our hearts.
Monotheism (Tawhid) alone is not sufficient for his deeds to be accepted.
Do not belittle the single sin. Adam (as) was removed from paradise for a single sin.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , ,

May 19, 2026 · 1:19 am

Qur’an contradiction? What burdens do we bear?

“Say: What! shall I seek a Lord other than Allah? And He is the Lord of all things; and no soul earns (evil) but against itself, and no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another; then to your Lord is your return, so He will inform you of that in which you differed.” (Qur’an 6:164)

“No soul burdened with sin will bear the burden of another. And if a sin-burdened soul cries for help with its burden, none of it will be carried—even by a close relative.” (Qur’an 35:18)

“And most certainly they shall carry their own burdens, and other burdens with their own burdens, and most certainly they shall be questioned on the resurrection day as to what they forged.” (Qur’an 29:13)

“That no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another, and that man shall have nothing but what he strives for.” (Qur’an 53:38-39)

﷽ 

Before we dive into this it is helpful for us to bring some additional verses of the Qur’an as well as a sacred transmission reported from the Blessed Prophet (saw).

“And fear the Day when you shall be brought back to Allah. Then shall every soul be paid what it earned, and none shall be dealt with unjustly.” (Qur’an 2:281)

“Verily We! We shall raise the dead. And We write down that which they send before and their footsteps. And everything We have counted up in a Book luminous.” (Qur’an 36:12)

Two additional translations of Qur’an 36:12

“Truly, We give life to the dead and We write down what they put forward and their effects. We counted everything in a clear record.” (Qur’an 36:12)

“Surely We will give new life to the dead, and We are recording whatever (deeds) they send before them and whatever effects they leave behind. Every thing is fully computed by Us in a manifest book of record.” (Qur’an 36:12)

It was narrated from Mundhir bin Jarir that his father said:

“The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘Whoever introduces a good practice that is followed, he will receive its reward and a reward equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their reward in the slightest.. And whoever introduces a bad practice that is followed, he will receive its sin and a burden of sin equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their burden in the slightest.'”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:203)

1) Fear the day that you will be returned to Allah.

This is the first information we should know. On this Earth, we are living and breathing, and one day we will die. When we die our body dies. However, the soul remains and that soul will return to Allah (swt). Whether you like it or not. Whether you believe it or not.

2) Then every soul will be compensated for what it has earned. Good earnings or bad earnings.

3) They will not be treated unjustly. This should make us happy as well as absolutely terrify us simultaneously.

Why is that? It makes us happy because now we know that Allah (swt) does not want only to punish us. Allah (swt) is not looking for an excuse just to throw us in hellfire. So this is very comforting to the believers.

Now it is also terrifying to know He is treating us justly because if Allah (swt) accounts for every single thing that we do—all mistakes, infractions, shortfalls—it is frightening., it is frightening.

4) Surely we give life to the dead. On the day of resurrection all the dead will be brought back to life. We will be reunited with our bodies, flesh and all. We will be waiting for the decree of Allah.

5) We write down what they have sent before and their footprints.

When you die your record goes before Allah and your footprints…

What is meant by the footprints (or traces) as other translations put it?

Imagine if you will someone walking in the desert and they are just passing by and the people coming after him they do not see the man but they see the footprints on the sand. They can see that someone has passed by here. They will acknowledge that someone has passed by.

This has to do with our deeds!

Example: Someone is selling drugs to young kids and this drug dealer dies. So in his record it is recorded that this person was drug dealer and sold drugs (end of story).

However, there is something added to the book which is the footprints (traces).

Now those small boys whom the drug dealer sold the drugs to they became addicted they became criminals they grew up to become drug dealers themselves.

So guess what? Who takes that burden who takes that responsibility? The initial drug dealer.

Of course those people are responsible for their own actions that they have acquired, yet, we cannot forget the initial drug dealer is responsible for this cascading chain of events and so the initial drug dealer shares in the evil that his actions wrought!

So this should make every one of us extremely cautious about what we do, what we say, and our influence upon others. So don’t think when you die you will only be rewarded for what you did. You will be rewarded for all the good that you initiated and others followed and were encouraged by. Likewise you will be punished for all the evil, wrongdoing, misguidance, lies, cheating etc. that others emulated, followed and in turn encouraged others to emulate.

If you make a video and post it on YouTube showing people how to break into a house, how to crack an encryption, and then, look, it goes viral.

Look at that word, viral! It now spreads and multiplies how evil is the return.

It was narrated from Mundhir bin Jarir that his father said:

“The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘Whoever introduces a good practice that is followed, he will receive its reward and a reward equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their reward in the slightest.And whoever introduces a bad practice that is followed, he will receive its sin and a burden of sin equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their burden in the slightest.'”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:203)

Jarir b. Abdullah reported that some desert Arabs clad in woollen clothes came to Allah’s Messenger (saw). He saw them in sad plight as they had been hard pressed by need. He (the Holy Prophet) exhorted people to give charity, but they showed some reluctance until (signs) of anger could be seen on his face. Then a person from the Ansar came with a purse containing silver. Then came another person and then other persons followed them in succession until signs of happiness could be seen on his (sacred) face. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (saw) said:

He who introduced some good practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect. And he who introduced some evil practice in Islam which had been followed subsequently (by others), he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this (evil practice) without their’s being diminished in any respect.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:1017e)

“And most certainly they shall carry their own burdens, and other burdens with their own burdens, and most certainly they shall be questioned on the resurrection day as to what they forged.” (Qur’an 29:13)

“Truly, We give life to the dead and We write down what they put forward and their effects. We counted everything in a clear record.” (Qur’an 36:12)

So in simple terms none of us will get rewarded for the good that others do or punished for the evil that others do. However, we can have shared reward and shared punishment based upon the influence of good or evil that we have upon others.

May Allah (swt) rectify our condition and cause us to be examples of good for others to emulate!

The fact that Allah (swt) does not cause us to bare the burdens of the sins of others is an established fact that even the Jews and Christians can find remnants of in their teachings:

“And when there came to them a Messenger from Allah, confirming what was with them, a faction of those who were given the Scripture threw the Scripture of Allah behind their backs, as though they didn’t know.” (Qur’an 2:101)

“And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad—they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it.” (Deuteronomy 1:39)

“And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:3)

All little children are those to whom the kingdom of heaven belongs. Therefore, all little children are persons without sin.

“The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.” (Ezekiel 18:20)

“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16)

“Yet he did not put the children of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the Lord commanded: “Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.” (2 Kings 14:6)

“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” (John 9:3)

The above texts record that the child will not bear the sin of their father. Therefore, all men are not born totally depraved.

At the very least this position as outlined in Islam, Judaism, and some interpretations of Christianity such as: Eastern Orthodox, and those Christian Churches and Churches of Christ often called: “Campbellites” have this as a common perspective.

In short:
No one is punished for another’s sin.
Everyone is rewarded or punished for their own deeds.
And additionally, one is held accountable for the chain of influence they initiate—good or evil.

May Allah make us among those who leave behind good footprints (athar hasan) and protect us from being a means of misguidance. Amin.

You may wish to read the following:

Are Muslims weighed on scales on the judgement day?
Jews and Christians as Ransom from the Hellfire Why the Ibadi School Rejects These Hadith
Are Christians truly assured and certain of their salvation?

May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah.

May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

May 18, 2026 · 2:30 pm

The Old Testament’s Framework for Child Rape: A Property Crime Against the Father, Remedied by Bride-Price and Forced Child Marriage.

“So marry them with the permission of their people ahlihinna (of their people/family)and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. They should be (muh’sanatin ghayra musafihatin) chaste not those who commit immorality, nor those who take lovers (akhdanin). (Qur’an 4:25)

﷽

Perhaps the single biggest polemic or attack directed towards Islam has to do with the claim that the Blessed Prophet (saw) married his wife Aisha (ra) at a very young age. 

For modern Christians, this represents the height of moral repugnance.  Even when it is pointed out to Christians that what makes a female a woman is puberty.  Even when it is pointed out that there is no definitive age given for marriage in the Bible, they still persist.

But here comes the problem. The Bible that Christians have in their hands today portrays the Christian Jesus as giving a law in which a 6 or 9-year-old was raped (not given in marriage) but raped, her rapist would pay 50 shekels of silver to her father. The man can never divorce her.

So, by this reasoning, if a person should never even consider Islam because of this, on what consistent basis should one become a Christian or remain a Christian given this shocking text?

Are Christians out to create more atheists than believers?

So let us look at the text in context. Let us look at the various ways Christian apologist try and soften the text.

The law that the Christians Jesus gave.

“If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.  If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.  Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her. If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” (Deuteronomy 22:22-28)

So let us analyze the text.

Case 1. “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.”

Prima Qur’an comments: The plain reading here is that a man (married or unmarried) sleeps with a woman (married) and they are found they are both to be killed. The text indicates both parties consent.

Case 2. “If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.” The text indicates both parties consent.

Prima Qur’an comments: The plain reading here is that a man (married or unmarried) sleeps with a woman (not married but engaged) and they are found they are both to be killed.

Case 3. “But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.  Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.”

Prima Qur’an comments: The plain reading of the text is if the man rapes a woman in the countryside the man is to be killed and the woman is to be spared. The reasoning being is that it is presumed that even if she did cry out for help no one could help her. This text does not indicate that the parties consent.

Case. 4 “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” This text does not indicate that the parties consent.

Prima Qur’an comments: The plain reading of the text is that if a man rapes a virgin who is not engaged and they are discovered he must pay the father 50 shekels of silver. He cannot divorce the young woman.

Analaytical breakdown of Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

We can translate the text as:

“If a man happens to meet a virgin (betulah) who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the ((na’arah) young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”

or

“If a man finds a young woman (na’arah) who is a virgin (betulah), not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.”

The definition of na’arah here is:

a girl (from infancy to adolescence).

Source: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5291.htm

What becomes immediately shocking is the law treats it as a property and marital crime against the father, not a violent assault on a child! In fact, the agency of the child is not considered at all.

Few points of clarification.

  1. This text is not endorsing rape of children.
  2. The text is informing us of what happens if a child is raped.
  3. This text is not saying that he must marry that child.
  4. The female child has no agency in this at all.

This is bloodcurdling evil. It represents a malevolence in its absolute, horrifying, and nightmarish form. Especially from the perspective of the female.

 On a plain reading, this law applies to any virgin female under her father’s authority who is not betrothed, regardless of age. The remedy is marriage to her rapist and no divorce.

The Purpose of the Law: This law served two purposes:

  • Financial penalty to the father (who lost the bride-price a virgin daughter would command).
  • Social protection for the woman, who would otherwise be “damaged goods” and unmarriageable. Forcing the rapist to marry her and never divorce her provided her with lifelong financial and social security. (This is abhorrent to modern ethics, but it was intended as a protection for the woman in that ancient patriarchal context.)

Notice the law treates this as a property and marital crime against the father and not a violent assault on a child!

That’s it. No age. No consent requirement. No exception for young children. No minimum threshold.

People (including scholars, pastors, and apologists) claim the Bible clearly excludes children from laws like Deuteronomy 22:28-29, they are adding to the text, not reading from it. The text says what it says. The rest is tradition, inference, or moral discomfort dressed up as exegesis.

Jews and Christians panic. This is not rape at all! It’s a case of seduction!

These are many different translations of the text into English.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/deuteronomy/22-28-compare.html

One thing that Jews and Christians will do is to say that the text is not talking about rape at all but seduction!

There are many reasons why this does not hold water and they know they are being decietful.

Notice the text says:

“He must marry the (na’arah) young woman, for he has violated her.”

“and she shall become his wife because he violated her”

“Humbled” / “violated” — does the punishment fits the crime

The word translated here as “violated” is also translated “afflicted” and “humbled”.

If it’s consensual, why can he never divorce her because he “violated/humbled” her?

If it’s consensual, there was no humbling or violation involved but she was an enthusiastic participant.

How do the Jews and Christians reconcile their idea that Deuteronomy 22:28 is consensual sex when the man is told he can never divorce the woman because he has humbled her?

Consensual sex doesn’t humble or disgrace a woman in that culture — marriage does not humble her. The humiliation is the forced nature of the act, the loss of her virginity by violence, the public shame. The permanent marriage without divorce is not a reward; it is a lifelong penalty to him (he cannot rid himself of her) and a provision for her (she would otherwise be unmarriageable and destitute). But that provision does not negate that the act was rape.

Exodus 22:16 vs. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 — different verbs, different meanings

Some Jews and Christians while trying to obfuscate the discussion quickly bring up Exodus 22:16.

Look at what it says:

“If a man seduces (patah) a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.” (Exodus 22:16)

“If a man finds a young woman (na’arah) who is a virgin (betulah), not betrothed, and seizes (taphas)her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he (anah)violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Terms.

patah. Meaning: allure, deceive, enlarge, entice, flatter, persuade, silly one

Source: (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6601.htm)

anah. Meaning: To afflict, oppress, humble, answer, respond

Source: (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6031.htm)

taphas. Meaning: To seize, capture, grasp, take hold of

Source: (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8610.htm)

There’s a difference between a man who has sex with a woman and then marries her and a man who seizes a woman, has sex with her, and then marries her. In the first case, he can divorce her. In the second case, he cannot. It only makes sense if he has done some unusual harm to her.

Notice in both cases the man still pays the fifty shekels of silver to the father. In the case that is consensual the marriage is at up to the father. The woman has no agency. In the case that it is non consensual the marriage must take place. The woman has no agency.

Note that Exodus 22:16 uses language of seduction (patah — to entice, persuade), while Deuteronomy 22:28 uses taphas (seize, overpower, force) and anah (afflict, humble, violate).

Examples of taphas.

“She caught him by his cloak and said, ‘Come to bed with me!’ But he left his cloak in her hand and ran out of the house.” (Genesis 39:12)

“Caught” = taphas (תָּפַשׂ) — Potiphar’s wife seizes/grabs hold of Joseph’s garment. The verb implies physical force or grasping, not a gentle or seductive touch.

“He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword.” (1 Samuel 15:8)

“Took” = taphas (תָּפַשׂ) — Saul captures/seizes King Agag. This is the language of military capture and physical restraint.

“Then Elijah commanded them, ‘Seize the prophets of Baal. Don’t let anyone get away!’ They seized them, and Elijah had them brought down to the Kishon Valley and slaughtered there.” (1 Kings 18:40)

First “Seize” and second “seized” = taphas (תָּפַשׂ) — Elijah commands the people to physically capture/restrain the prophets of Baal. Again, forceful taking of persons.

Example of anah.

“But when she brought it to him to eat, he took hold of her and said, “Come to bed with me, my sister.” “No, my brother!” she said to him. “Don’t force me! (tə·‘an·nê·nî) This thing should not be done in Israel. Don’t do this wicked thing. What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel. Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you.” But he refused to listen to her, and since he was stronger than she, he (way·‘an·ne·hā) raped her.” (2 Samuel 13:11-14)

Both of the words translated as: Don’t force me! and raped her are verb forms of the word anah.

You know what context the word (anah) never appears in the Bible? Where a woman has consensual sex.

Christian apologist dig deep to obfuscate the matter one last time.

So one Christian wanted to show that anah only means humbled and not rape.

So here the Bible god gives the people two choices. Submit to forced labour (which includes your men, women, and animals) or we fight kill the men and which result sin forced labour (minus the men).

“When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.  If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.  If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.” (Deuteronomy 20:10-15)

So this Christian cited the following text:

“When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails  and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.  If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have (‘in·nî·ṯāh)dishonored her.” (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)

Such Christians are truly dark individuals.

So this Christian believes that once a man goes into a village, kills a woman’s entire family, takes her prisoner, brings her home, and “marries” her after she mourns her dead family (mother and father) for a mere month that this ‘marriage’ was consensual?

One last plead by the Christian apologist. The phrase: ‘They are discovered’ and the ‘no cry for help.’

  • The phrase “they are discovered” (wə·nim·ṣā·’ū) does not imply consent. It implies the act became known—whether through pregnancy, witness, rumor, or later discovery. A raped girl might well be silent out of fear, shame, or trauma (as Tamar was—she “put ashes on her head” and went away desolate, but she did not immediately run to report it).

Imagine a woman who walking on her way to work and she sees man holding a woman at knife point. She discovers them. Does that make the encounter mutual or consensual no it doesn’t.

This causes us to go back and look at case 2 above.

Case 2. “If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.”

This law given to us by the Christian Jesus is very legally crude by modern standards. It also shows us to us that the Christian Jesus cannot be Almighty God becuase his logic is flawed. When the Christian Jesus teaches us: “cry = rape” / “no cry = consent” we must object on moral and logical grounds.

Here the seeker of truth and the Christian who is distraught over these teaches of Christiain Jesus is comforted by the Muslim who says to these text given by the Christiain Jesus. “It doesn’t work like that at all!”

Any of these would explain why a raped girl — especially a child of 6 or 9 — might not cry out:

  • Gagged — physically unable to scream
  • Weapon held to throat — silent or die
  • Threats against her family — “I’ll kill your father if you scream”
  • Threats against her livelihood — “I’ll make sure you and your family starve”
  • Fear-induced paralysis — freeze response is documented, common, and not consent
  • Authority figure — if the man is her employer, a relative, or someone with power over her family
  • Shame or confusion — especially in a child who may not fully understand what is happening
  • Previous threats — “No one will believe you”

A Muslim would never attribute such sick and deperaved reasoning to Jesus (upon whom be peace). Let alone attribute this to God Almighty!

Context of (Deuteronomy 22:22-28) shows that verse 28-29 is non consensual.

Notice that Deuteronomy 22:22-28 is split into two sections.

Case 1 and Case 2 which indicate consent. and Case 3 and 4 which showcase cohercision.

“But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.” The word translated ‘rapes her’ in verse 25 is the Hebrew word

The word translated “rapes her” in verse 25 is the Hebrew (wə·he·ḥĕ·zîq).

chazaq means:  To be strong, to strengthen, to harden, to prevail, to take hold of

Source: (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2388.htm)

“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered.”

The word translated as “rapes her” in verse 28 is the Hebrew (ū·ṯə·p̄ā·śāh)

taphas. Meaning: To seize, capture, grasp, take hold of

Source: (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8610.htm)

So it is very clear that verse is speaking of cohercision as it comes under the section dealing with cohercision.

Betrothed vs. unbetrothed — the father’s property distinction

The only reason the rapist is punished is in the previous text is because she belongs to another man.

In Deuteronomy 22:22-27, if a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and does not cry out, she is executed alongside the rapist (presumed consent). See Case 2 mentioned above.

If a betrothed virgin is raped in the field, only the man dies (she is presumed innocent). See Case 3 mentioned above.

The difference is property rights — a betrothed woman belongs to another man. An unbetrothed virgin belongs to her father. The rape of an unbetrothed virgin is a property crime against the father (hence the fine paid to him), not primarily a crime against the person of the girl.

That is why:

  • A betrothed woman’s rape is adultery against the husband (death penalty)
  • An unbetrothed woman’s rape is theft from the father (50 shekels + marriage)

The woman herself is not the primary rights-holder in either case.

That is precisely why the law given to us by the Christian Jesus is abhorrent by modern standards: it treats the rape of a child or unmarried woman as a financial and marital offense against her male guardian, not as a violent crime against her. It’s this dehumanization of women by the Christian Jesus that has left many Christians devesated and soul searching.

The Septuagint — biasamenos (by force)

The Greek translation (LXX) uses βιασάμενος  biasamenos — from biazō, meaning “to use force, to compel, to rape.” There is no ambiguity. The translators of the Septuagint (Jewish scholars centuries before Christianity) understood the Hebrew to mean forcible rape.

Source: (https://www.septuagint.bible/-/deuteronomion-kephalaio-22)

Source: (https://biblehub.com/greek/971.htm)

There is no Christian case to be made against the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) based upon reports of him marrying Ayesha (ra). That is to say there is no consistent case. If one is to reject Islam because of the hadith reports that he married Ayesha (ra) at the age of 9, then the Christian is asking the Muslim to reject Christianity altogether.  There is no way the two models are morally equal.

One is a claim not based upon the Qur’an but upon Islamic secondary sources that the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) consensually married Ayesha (ra) at the age of 9.

The other is a claim that the Christian Jesus gave us a law where a man who rapes a young female virgin at the age of 6 or 9 pays 50 shekels of silver to her father and then marries the young female virgin. This was done without her consent. Such a law is not found in the oral tradition but in the very heart of the sacred text of the Christians and Jews.

No morally sound person could ever consider Christianity knowing that the Christian Jesus gave such scuzzy and crummy laws.

You may also be interested in reading the following:

The Question of Slavery & Milk Al Yamin In Islam.
Shafi’i Muhaddith (Salah al-Din al-idlibi) questions age of Aisha in Bukhari
The Age of Aisha and the Highly Detailed Qur’an?
The appropriate age for a female to marry and bear children according to the Bible.
The appropriate age for a female to marry and bear children according to Quran only

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 17, 2026 · 6:10 am

Eid Mubarak from Prima Qur’an.

“Call people to the pilgrimage. They will come to you on foot and on every lean camel from every distant path.” (Qur’an 22:27)

﷽


Eid Mubarak! May this blessed occasion fill your heart with joy, your home with warmth, and your life with countless blessings. May Allah grant you peace, love, and unity in the company of family and friends. 🌙✨Please forgive our many short comings and faults. While we celebrate let us not forget those who can’t due to war and oppression. Let us not forget the converts, often alone and isolated. 🌹❤️

Congratulations the many hundreds of thousands who have fulfilled thier obligation of Hajj. May Allah bless you all and may it be a witness for you on the day of judgement. 

May this be a very blessed and joyous Eid for all of you!

We give you the Eid Khutbah from Shaykh Dr. Kahlan Al Kharusi assistant Mufti of Oman. May Allah have mercy on him.

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Indeed, all praise is due to Allah. We praise Him, seek His help, and ask for His forgiveness. We seek refuge in Allah from the evils of our souls and the wickedness of our deeds. Whomever Allah guides, none can lead astray, and whomever He allows to stray, none can guide. I bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah, alone, without any partner. And I bear witness that Muhammed is His servant and His Messenger. O Allah, bestow Your blessings and peace upon him, upon his family, his companions, and all those who follow his guidance until the Day of Judgment. Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest. There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah, and Allah is the Greatest, infinitely great. Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest. There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah, and Allah is the Greatest. And to Allah belongs all praise, abundant praise. Glory be to Allah in the morning and the evening.

O you who believe, be mindful of Allah and speak words that are just and right. He will then rectify your deeds for you and forgive you your sins. Whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger has indeed achieved a magnificent triumph.

Now then, indeed the hearts of Muslims today beat with a call, renewing their covenant with Allah Almighty, either through spoken words or through their very state: “Here I am, O Allah, here I am. Here I am, You have no partner, here I am. Indeed, all praise, blessings, and dominion are Yours. You have no partner.” It is a sincere faith, absolute obedience, profound gratitude, abundant remembrance, and much supplication. How great these days are, and how magnificent the meanings and signs they bring! They all come with Eid to renew in the Islamic nation that its creed is a pure and tolerant monotheism, that its message is one of goodness, guidance, and mercy to the worlds, that its guidance is that of justice and truth, and its hallmark is high moral character, noble values, and generous traits. By the truth of Allah, these are the very things that unite the word of Muslims, give them honor among nations, guide their standing, preserve their homelands, and call for their unity—if only they understood them and embraced them. Whoever submits his face to Allah while doing good has grasped the most trustworthy handhold. And to Allah is the final return of all matters. Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest. There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah, and Allah is the Greatest. And to Allah belongs all praise.

O servants of Allah, can it be hidden from any rational person what humanity is experiencing today of turmoil in conditions, imbalance in the foundations of understanding and cooperation, distance from guidance and righteousness, and the rejection of the causes of peace? Yet the sincere Muslim is commanded in all his affairs to adhere to truth, uphold justice, reject oppression and aggression, and embody patience, diligence, and wisdom. If he does so, Allah Almighty guarantees him the overcoming of tribulations, the attainment of goals, and the realization of goodness.

Consider how our Lord, Glorious and Exalted, gave us glad tidings in Surah Al-Ma’idah through a verse revealed to the Messenger of Allah (saw) during such blessed days as these, on the Day of Arafah. It is His saying, Exalted is He: “Today I have perfected for you your religion, completed My favor upon you, and have approved for you Islam as your religion.” Then He informs us of another great glad tiding we remember with the renewed memory of these fragrant, blessed days, which dispels despair from souls and brings joy and hope. For He, Glorified is He, says in the same surah: “Your only ally is Allah, His Messenger, and the believers—those who establish prayer, give charity, and bow down in worship. Whoever takes Allah, His Messenger, and the believers as allies—indeed, the party of Allah will be victorious.” And from His mercy, Glorious and Exalted, upon His servants is that He made clear to them the method of achieving that in the same surah, revealing what they need when nations conspire and balances are distorted. He, Glorified is He, says: “O you who believe, be steadfast for Allah as witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just, for it is closer to righteousness. And be mindful of Allah. Indeed, Allah is All-Aware of what you do.” Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest. There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah, and Allah is the Greatest. And to Allah belongs all praise.

O Muslims, may Allah have mercy on you, seize these good and blessed days by glorifying Allah Almighty through remembrance and gratitude, performing the Takbir and remembrance after the obligatory prayers until the end of the Days of Tashreeq, and offering sacrifices for the sake of Allah Almighty, while being diligent in acts of kindness, righteousness, benevolence, and striving to reconcile between people. Strive for what increases our beloved homeland, Oman, in status, honor, cohesion, security, and peace, appreciating the efforts of every hand that builds, and being vigilant against anyone who seeks evil, division, or detraction. The path to all of this lies in us, the people of this generous land, realizing the meanings of fraternity, mercy, mutual love, compassion, turning to noble matters, and disregarding trivial ones. No season is more worthy of reviving these meanings and realizing them in our reality than these well-known days. We always advise ourselves and others to heed Allah Almighty’s commandment where He says: “And fear a Day when you will be returned to Allah, then every soul will be fully compensated for what it has earned, and they will not be wronged.”

And send blessings and peace upon the trustworthy Messenger, for your Lord has commanded you to do so when He said: “Indeed, Allah and His angels send blessings upon the Prophet. O you who believe, send blessings upon him and greet him with full respect.” O Allah, send blessings upon our Prophet Muhammed and upon the family of our Prophet Muhammed, as You sent blessings upon Ibrahim. And bestow blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon the family of our Prophet Muhammed, as You bestowed blessings upon Ibrahim and the family of Ibrahim in the worlds. Indeed, You are Praiseworthy, Glorious. O Allah, be pleased with his rightly-guided successors, his wives, the mothers of the believers, all the other companions, and with us along with them, by Your mercy, O Most Merciful of the merciful.

O Allah, our Lord, protect our homelands and strengthen our ruler, Haitham bin Tarik. Support him with truth, and support truth through him, O Lord of the worlds. O Allah, shower him with Your blessings, support him with the light of Your wisdom, guide him with Your success, guard him with Your protective care, and bring about through him abundant goodness, honor, and elevation for his people and his nation, O Possessor of Majesty and Honor. O Allah, we ask You to decree for Oman and its people honor, elevation, growth, security, and peace, to avert from them all evil and dislike, and to suffice us, O our God, against the evil of trials, both apparent and hidden. O Allah, send down upon us blessings from the heavens, bring forth for us the good of the earth, and bless us in our fruits, crops, and all our provisions, O Possessor of Majesty and Honor. O Allah, grant glory to Islam, guide Muslims to the truth, unite their word upon goodness, support our oppressed brothers in Gaza, Palestine, and all other Muslim lands, and be their Protector, Sufficer, and Supporter. O Allah, suffice them against Your enemy and their enemy as You will, O Possessor of Majesty and Honor. O Allah, protect the pilgrims to Your Sacred House, accept their rituals from them, and return them to their families safe and successful. Our Lord, grant us good in this world and good in the Hereafter, and protect us from the punishment of the Fire.

Indeed, Allah commands justice, goodness, and giving to close relatives, and forbids immorality, evil, and oppression. He admonishes you so that you may take heed.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

May 16, 2026 · 1:04 am

The Jurisprudence of Hajj. Step by Step part 3 with Shaykh Abdul Munim bin Rashid Al-Saidi

“Complete the pilgrimage and minor pilgrimage for Allah.” (Qur’an 2:196)

﷽ 

May Allah (swt) bless and accept the noble Shaykh for teaching us how to perform the Hajj in accordance with the Qur’an and Sunnah. May all who follow this guide remember the blessed Shaykh in their du’a and may this teaching be a witness for the Shaykh on the day of reckoning. Amin.

Hajj Step by Step | Hajj Rituals from the Day of Tarwiyah to the Days of Tashreeq | Shaykh Abdul-Munim bin Rashid Al-Saidi

Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest. There is no god but Allah

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of all worlds, and may peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammed, his family, and all his companions. My dear brothers and sisters, respected viewers, we greet you with the greeting of Islam: Peace be upon you all, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. We continue, by the will of Allah, this blessed course concerning the rulings of the rituals of Hajj and Umrah.

In our previous meeting, we had stopped after completing the rituals of Umrah.

The pilgrim remains in the sacred city of Makkah, increasing their remembrance of Allah (dhikr) and attending the circles of knowledge that are held within the campaign accommodations. They should be extremely keen not to miss these lessons, because the ultimate goal of these lessons and lectures held for the pilgrims in their accommodations is to prepare the pilgrims’ hearts spiritually, as well as to prepare them jurisprudentially and knowledgeably, so they are fully prepared to perform this blessed ritual and to complete the rites of Hajj with clear insight and guidance.

The actions of Hajj begin on the eighth day of Dhul-Hijjah.

This Hajj has three pillars (arkan). When we say ‘pillar’, it means a foundation upon which Hajj is built. If any one of these pillars is compromised, the Hajj becomes invalid. The first pillar is Ihram (the state of consecration), because Ihram is the key through which the pilgrim enters this rite. Without Ihram, they have not entered the rite at all. The second pillar is standing at Arafah, because the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Hajj is Arafah.” Whoever does not stand at Arafah with the pilgrims, their Hajj is invalid. The third pillar is Tawaf (circumambulation) and Sa’i (walking between Safa and Marwah) – specifically Tawaf al-Ifadah along with Sa’i al-Ifadah. This Tawaf with Sa’i is a pillar of Hajj.

These three pillars cannot be compensated for by anything.

If a person leaves other rites out of forgetfulness, ignorance, heedlessness, or due to an inability for health reasons that prevents them from performing them, those might be compensated for by something, such as offering a sacrifice (dam) or a fidya (ransom). However, these three pillars cannot be compensated for by anything. Whoever does not perform one of them, their Hajj is invalid. Therefore, pay attention to these three pillars, may Allah bless you.

When do the actions of Hajj begin?

On the eighth day of Dhul-Hijjah, which is the Day of Tarwiyah. On the eighth of Dhul-Hijjah, the rites of Hajj begin. The pilgrim enters Ihram from their own home in which they are residing, i.e., from the accommodation they are staying in within Makkah. They do not need to go to a Miqat (designated station for Ihram), nor to the Sacred Mosque, nor to the mosque of their neighborhood. Rather, they enter Ihram from the very place they are staying in Makkah.

What does the pilgrim do on the eighth day, from the moment they enter Ihram until the morning of the ninth day? Let us all watch this following clip.

Actions of the Eighth Day: The Mutamatti’ (performing Umrah first then Hajj), Mufrid (performing Hajj only), and Qiran (performing Umrah and Hajj together) enter Ihram on the eighth day if they have not entered Ihram before that. This is done by wearing the garments of Ihram and avoiding prohibited acts, such as stitched clothing, covering the head (for men), using perfume, engaging in sexual intercourse and its preliminaries, and arguing.

Among the actions of the eighth day is forming the intention (niyyah) after beginning the Talbiyah (chanting “Labbayk Allahumma Labbayk…”) while heading to Mina. This day is the first day of Hajj. The pilgrim should recite the Talbiyah and dhikr abundantly while being careful to spend the night of the ninth day in Mina. If the pilgrim remains in Mina and prays the five daily prayers there – Dhuhr, Asr, Maghrib, Isha, and Fajr – how does the pilgrim pray these five prayers in Mina? For Dhuhr, they pray two rak’ahs shortened (qasr) at its proper time. For Asr, they pray two rak’ahs shortened at its proper time. For Maghrib, they pray three rak’ahs at its proper time. For Isha, they pray two rak’ahs shortened at its proper time. As for Fajr, there is no shortening, so they pray it at its proper time. Thus, they perform these five prayers in Mina until the morning of the ninth day of Dhul-Hijjah. From the moment they enter Ihram on the eighth day until this time on the morning of the ninth day, the pilgrim should abundantly recite the Talbiyah to Allah, repeating it over and over.

The ninth day of Dhul-Hijjah is the greatest day of Hajj by far. It is called the Day of Arafah. What is the Day of Arafah? What does the pilgrim do on this day? What is the status of this day with Allah? Let us all watch the following clip.

Actions of the Ninth Day

The Day of Arafah: This is the ninth day of Dhul-Hijjah and it is the second pillar of Hajj after Ihram. “Hajj is Arafah,” and the Hajj of one who does not stand at Arafah is incomplete. After sunrise on the ninth day, the pilgrim begins moving from Mina to Arafah for this greatest pillar. What is meant by ‘standing’ (wuquf) is remaining in the place, not the physical posture of standing. The time for the standing begins after the sun passes its zenith (zawal) until complete sunset. The pilgrim listens to the sermon delivered by the khatib after zawal, then they pray Dhuhr and Asr combined and shortened. The pilgrim humbly supplicates (du’a), seeks forgiveness (istighfar), and remembers Allah generally. This day is the greatest and most honorable day of the entire year, and they should not waste it on idle talk, gossip, or meaningless conversation.

The pilgrim remains in Arafah until they are certain of sunset. It is not permissible for them to depart (Ifadah) before that. Whoever intentionally departs before sunset has invalidated their Hajj. Likewise, it is not correct for them to move from their standing spot towards the boundaries of Arafah with the intention of preparing to leave, as the intention of leaving and moving is equivalent to departing (Ifadah). Purification (taharah) is not a condition for standing at Arafah. Therefore, the standing of a menstruating woman, a woman experiencing post-natal bleeding, or a person in a state of major ritual impurity (junub) is valid. However, the person in major impurity is commanded to perform ghusl (bath) for prayer, and performing ghusl, bathing, and changing clothes does not prevent this; rather, it is recommended for the purpose of cleanliness and purity.

The pilgrim departs (yufeed) from Arafah after sunset, heading to Muzdalifah to spend the night. Thus, the standing at Arafah is completed. The pilgrim remains in Arafah, abundantly remembering Allah. The greatest remembrance that the pilgrim can offer on the Day of Arafah is what is authentically reported from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him): the pilgrim’s saying, “La ilaha illa Allah, wahdahu la sharika lahu, lahul mulku wa lahul hamdu, wa huwa ‘ala kulli shay’in Qadeer” (There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah alone, He has no partner, to Him belongs sovereignty and all praise, and He is over all things competent). So the pilgrim should recite this dhikr and others abundantly, filling their time on this blessed day and making good use of and dividing their time.

Indeed, Hajj is Arafah, and the best day upon which the sun has risen and set is the Day of Arafah.

The best supplication is the supplication of the Day of Arafah. The devil has never been seen more humiliated, more despised, more angry, or more grieved than on this day, due to what he sees of the abundant descending of Allah’s mercies on these blessed plains. The standing on the Day of Arafah begins after the sun’s zenith. Therefore, what I advise the pilgrims to the Sacred House of Allah, when they arrive at Arafah before zawal (i.e., before Dhuhr prayer, before the time for Dhuhr enters), is to rest a little so that their bodies become active for performing the actions that will begin after zawal. The actual standing (wuquf) begins after the sun passes its zenith. So, when zawal occurs, the khatib stands and delivers the sermon of Arafah to the people. Then the call to prayer (Adhan) is given, and they pray Dhuhr and Asr combined and shortened. This combination and shortening is obligatory at Arafah. After finishing the prayer, each person devotes themselves to the remembrance of Allah.

What I advise my brothers and sisters is to create a schedule for dhikr on this day, dividing their time so they can make the best possible use of this blessed day. The pilgrim remains in Arafah, reciting the Quran and remembering Allah in whatever position they are in: “Those who remember Allah standing, sitting, and on their sides.” If a person needs to rest a little to rejuvenate their body, there is no religious prohibition against sleeping. The pilgrim remains in Arafah, not leaving until they are certain of sunset. Once they are certain of sunset, i.e., the entry of Maghrib prayer time, it becomes legislated for them to depart (Ifadah) from Arafah. The pilgrims leave Arafah heading towards Muzdalifah. This is where the actions of the tenth day begin.

There are actions the pilgrim performs on the night of the tenth day – i.e., the night spent in Muzdalifah – and there are actions they perform on the morning of the tenth day. What are these actions performed by the pilgrim in Muzdalifah, and what are the actions performed on the morning of the tenth day? Let us all watch this clip, which explains the actions of the tenth day, starting from the night until the morning of that day.

We watch the actions of the tenth day: He prays Maghrib and Isha in Muzdalifah, combined with delay (jam’ ta’khir). He abundantly recites the Talbiyah, Takbir (“Allahu Akbar”), Tasbih (“Subhan Allah”), Tahmid (“Alhamdulillah”), and Tahlil (“La ilaha illa Allah”) at Al-Mash’ar Al-Haram (the Sacred Monument). Spending the night (mabit) in Muzdalifah is an obligatory sunnah (wajib), and it is not permissible to intentionally leave it except for an excuse. Spending the night is achieved by remaining for most of the night of sacrifice (Yawm an-Nahr) there.

It is legislated for the one standing at Muzdalifah, after praying Fajr and remembering Allah, to cross the valley of Muhassir quickly and pass beyond it before the sun rises on the tenth day, if possible. After passing the valley of Muhassir, the pilgrim heads to stone (ramy) the Great Jamrah (Jamrat al-Aqabah), which is the last Jamrah from the direction of Makkah. Here, they stop reciting the Talbiyah and throw seven pebbles at the Jamrah, saying “Allahu Akbar” with each pebble. They should have Makkah on their left and Mina on their right, if possible. Then they leave immediately after the seventh pebble, without making supplication (du’a) or dhikr. They do not throw any other Jamrah on this day according to the Sunnah.

After finishing the stoning, the pilgrim should hasten to slaughter their sacrificial animal (hady). After ensuring the slaughter is done, they are permitted to perform Tahallul (exit from Ihram) by shaving or shortening their hair. By doing so, they have exited from Ihram to the minor tahallul (at-tahallul al-asghar). They are then permitted everything that was prohibited during Ihram, except for sexual intercourse, which is only permitted after completing Tawaf al-Ifadah.

The actions of the tenth day are performed in order: stoning (ramy), then slaughter (dhabh), then shaving (halq). It is not valid to intentionally present one before the other, unless done out of forgetfulness or heedlessness. The pilgrim still has to perform, on the tenth day, Tawaf al-Ifadah around the Ancient House (the Kaaba) and Sa’i, which is obligatory for the Mutamatti’. As for the Mufrid and Qiran, if they had already performed Sa’i after Tawaf al-Qudum (Arrival Tawaf), that suffices them for the Sa’i of Hajj. After completing Tawaf and Sa’i, the pilgrim has achieved the major tahallul (at-tahallul al-akbar). It is also permissible for the pilgrim to delay Tawaf al-Ifadah and Sa’i until after the days of Tashreeq, especially for menstruating women or those experiencing post-natal bleeding. Consequently, the major tahallul is delayed for them as well.

Once the pilgrim has completed the actions of the tenth day, there remain actions of Hajj to be performed during the days of Tashreeq.

The days of Tashreeq are the 11th, 12th, and 13th of Dhul-Hijjah. It is permissible for the pilgrim, after performing the stoning on the 12th day, to leave Mina without performing the stoning on the 13th day and without spending the night of the 13th in Mina. Allah Almighty says in the Noble Book: “But whoever hastens (to leave) in two days – there is no sin upon him, and whoever delays – there is no sin upon him for whoever fears Allah.” What are the actions the pilgrim performs during the days of Tashreeq (the 11th, 12th, and if they remain for the 13th)? Let us watch these actions together according to their legislated order.

Watch the following clip: The days of Tashreeq – the 11th, 12th, and 13th of Dhul-Hijjah – begin with the sunset of the tenth day and end with the sunset of the thirteenth day.

They are days of eating, drinking, and remembrance of Allah. Among the Sunnahs of these days is remaining in Mina and spending most of the night there. It is not advisable to be lenient in leaving spending the night there except for an excuse such as illness or a necessity requiring departure.

It is legislated during these days to stone the three Jamarat: the small (as-sughra), the middle (al-wusta), and the great (al-kubra). The time for stoning on the days of Tashreeq begins from the verified passing of the sun’s zenith (zawal). There is no narrow restriction on the ending time for stoning. Order (tarteeb) is required in stoning; it is not valid to present the middle or great Jamrah before the small Jamrah. The pilgrim stones the small Jamrah, one pebble at a time, saying “Allahu Akbar” with each pebble. Then they face the Qibla and supplicate to Allah and remember Him. Then they proceed to the middle Jamrah and stone it likewise with seven pebbles, saying “Allahu Akbar” with each pebble. Then they face the Qibla again, raising their hands in supplication and dhikr. Then they proceed to the great Jamrah and do the same as before, except they do not stop here for dhikr and supplication. Thus, they have finished stoning the three Jamarat on the 11th day. They repeat the stoning on the 12th day, and on the 13th day for those who delay. It is not valid to perform the stoning before zawal for those who wish to hasten, under the pretext of wanting to return home. Rather, the time for stoning begins after verified zawal on each of the days of Tashreeq.

Allah has permitted those in a hurry to depart (an-Nafr) from Mina to Makkah for Tawaf al-Wada’ (Farewell Tawaf) and then return home, after stoning the three Jamarat on the 12th day. However, the virtue and reward are greater for those who delay until the 13th. As you have seen, the actions of stoning on the 11th and 12th occur after zawal, meaning after the entry time of Dhuhr prayer. Here, I will explain to you in a visual clip where and how the stoning of the three Jamarat is performed. Let us watch this clip together, and then I will comment on it. Stoning should be done inside this basin, meaning the pilgrim throws the pebble so that it falls inside the basin. If they can hit the wall – i.e., the wall of the stoning area – that is better. The minimum requirement is that it falls inside the basin of the Jamarat. If the pebble falls outside the basin or on top of the wall, they must replace it with another pebble and throw it inside the basin. This is the method of stoning during these days.

Undoubtedly, you are aware that the pilgrim stones the three Jamarat – the small, then the middle, then the great – stoning each one with seven pebbles. However, they should not throw all seven at once. Rather, they throw them one pebble at a time until they are certain each pebble has fallen into the stoning basin. We ask Allah Almighty to grant you success in performing this.

After finishing Hajj, after stoning the Jamarat on the 12th day and leaving Mina, the pilgrim heads to Makkah. They remain there until the time of their travel and return to their country. At this point, they must perform Tawaf al-Wada’ (Farewell Tawaf). Tawaf al-Wada’ is a Tawaf of seven circuits around the Kaaba, followed by praying two rak’ahs. The pilgrim should not abandon this Tawaf, as it is an obligatory duty (wajib) of the duties of Hajj, whether the person is a man or a woman. Tawaf al-Wada’ is only waived for two categories of people: the first is a woman who experiences her menstrual period (hayd) before she can perform the Farewell Tawaf; she may leave without performing Tawaf. The second is a person afflicted by Allah with an illness that prevents them from performing Tawaf al-Wada’, whether walking or being carried. Thus, it is waived from them due to inability. As for the rest of the pilgrims, they must perform Tawaf al-Wada’ and make the last action they do in Makkah the Tawaf of the House. Therefore, after Tawaf al-Wada’, it is not correct for the pilgrim to buy anything without necessity, nor to sleep in Makkah before leaving it. Rather, after Tawaf al-Wada’, the pilgrim should immediately proceed to leave Makkah. However, if someone is forced to buy something, such as losing their sandals (may Allah bless you), and they cannot walk barefoot, it is legally permitted for them to go and buy sandals and then leave Makkah.

What are the rulings pertaining to Tawaf al-Wada’? What is the manner of performing Tawaf al-Wada’? Let us watch the following clip:

Tawaf al-Wada’: Scholars agree on the legislated nature of the Farewell Tawaf for the pilgrim, based on the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him): “None of you should depart until his last interaction with the House is the Tawaf.” The pilgrim performs Tawaf of seven circuits around the House, without Ihram and without Sa’i. Then they try to hasten to leave the known boundaries of the sanctuary, so that the Tawaf is the last action they perform.

With this, my dear respected brothers and sisters, viewers, we have completed this jurisprudential course on how to perform the rites of Hajj and Umrah. We ask Allah Almighty to grant us and you success in saying and doing what He loves and is pleased with, to grant us and you sincerity and acceptance, to accept from us and you the righteous deeds, to grant the pilgrims to the Sacred House of Allah success in performing this blessed rite according to what pleases Allah Almighty, and we ask Him to ordain good for us and for you, and to ordain good for His believing servants. We entrust you to Allah, Whose trusts are never lost. May Allah bless you. Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

May 15, 2026 · 1:16 am

Ishmael the Sacrifice: Resolving the Biblical Contradictions Through the Qur’anic Narrative

“Also mention in the Book (the story of) Isma’il: He was (strictly) true to what he promised ( l-waʿdi), and he was a messenger (and) a prophet.” (Qur’an 19:54)

“Then do they not reflect (yatadabbarūna) upon the Qur’an, or are there locks upon [their] hearts?” (Qur’an 47:24)

﷽ 

Allah describes Isma’il as one who was true to what he promised.

We want to give credit first and foremost to Muhammed b. Yusuf b. ‘Isa b. Salih Atfayyish, the luminary of Islam and Shaykh in the Ibadi school. May Allah have mercy on him.

The following is taken from Taysir al-tafsir volume 12, pages 131 to 142 and volume 6 pages 447 to 449.

Every time the Qur’an mentions prophets in a sequence and Ishaq (Isaac) and Isma’il (Ishmael)are mentioned, Isma’il always comes before ishaq.

” Or were you witnesses when death approached Jacob, when he said to his sons, “What will you worship after me?” They said, “We will worship your God and the God of your fathers, Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac one God. And we are Muslims to Him.” (Qur’an 2:133)

“Say, “We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims to Him.” (Qur’an 2:136)

“Or do you say that Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants were  Jews or Christians? Say, “Are you more knowing or is Allah ?” And who is more unjust than one who conceals a testimony he has from Allah ? And Allah is not unaware of what you do.” (Qur’an 2:140)

“Say, “We have believed in Allah and in what was revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Descendants, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims to Him.” (Qur’an 3:84)

“Indeed, We have revealed to you, as We revealed to Noah and the prophets after him. And we revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, the Descendants, Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the Zabur.” (Qur’an 4:163)

“Praise to Allah, who has granted to me in old age Ishmael and Isaac. Indeed, my Lord is the Hearer of supplication.” (Qur’an 14:39)

“So We gave him good news of a forbearing son. And when he reached the age to work with him, he said, ‘O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice you. So tell me what you think.’ He said, ‘O my father, do as you are commanded. You will find me, if Allah wills, among the patient.’ So when they had both submitted themselves, and he laid him on his forehead, We called out to him, ‘O Abraham, you have already fulfilled the vision.’ Indeed, this is how We reward the good-doers. That was truly a revealing test. And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice. And We left for him among later generations [the salutation], ‘Peace be upon Abraham.’ This is how We reward the good-doers. He was truly one of Our faithful servants. We gave him good news of Isaac—a prophet, and one of the righteous.” (Qur’an 37:101-112)

“And surely Our messenger-angels came to Abraham with good news. They greeted him with ‘Peace!’ And he replied, ‘Peace be upon you!’ Then it was not long before he brought them a roasted calf. But when he saw their hands not reaching for it, he found them strange and felt fear of them. They said, ‘Fear not. We have been sent to the people of Lot.’ And his wife was standing by, and she laughed. Then We gave her good news of Isaac, and after Isaac, Jacob. She said, ‘Woe to me! Shall I give birth while I am an old woman and this, my husband, is an old man? Indeed, this is an astonishing thing!’ They said, ‘Are you astonished at the command of Allah? May the mercy of Allah and His blessings be upon you, people of the house. Indeed, He is Praiseworthy, Glorious.'” (Qur’an 11:69-73)

“And [mention] when Abraham said, ‘My Lord, make this city [Mecca] secure and keep me and my sons away from worshipping idols. My Lord, indeed they have led astray many among the people. So whoever follows me, then he is of me; and whoever disobeys me – indeed, You are Forgiving and Merciful. Our Lord, I have settled some of my descendants in an uncultivated valley near Your sacred House, our Lord, that they may establish prayer. So make hearts among the people incline toward them and provide for them from the fruits that they might be grateful.'” (Qur’an 14:35-37)

“And [mention] when We made the House a place of return for the people and a place of security. And take, [O believers], from the standing place of Abraham a place of prayer. And We charged Abraham and Ishmael, [saying], ‘Purify My House for those who perform Tawaf and those who are staying [there] for worship and those who bow and prostrate [in prayer].’ And [mention] when Abraham said, ‘My Lord, make this a secure city and provide its people with fruits – whoever among them believes in Allah and the Last Day.’ [Allah] said, ‘And whoever disbelieves – I will grant him enjoyment for a little then I will force him to the punishment of the Fire, and wretched is the destination.’ And [mention] when Abraham was raising the foundations of the House and [with him] Ishmael, [saying], ‘Our Lord, accept [this] from us. Indeed You are the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing. Our Lord! Make us both submissive to You and [raise] from our descendants a nation submissive to You. Teach us our ways of worship and turn to us mercifully. Indeed, You are the Most-Relenting, the All-Merciful.'” (Qur’an 2:125-128)

“Has the story reached you of the honored guests of Abraham? When they entered upon him and said, ‘Peace.’ He answered, ‘Peace, [you are] a people unknown.’ Then he turned to his family and came with a fat [roasted] calf. And he placed it near them; he said, ‘Will you not eat?’ Then he felt from them a sense of fear. They said, ‘Fear not,’ and gave him good news of a knowledgeable boy. Then his wife approached with a loud cry, and she struck her face and said, ‘A barren old woman!’ They said, ‘Thus has said your Lord. Indeed, He is the Wise, the Knowing.'” (Qur’an 51:24-30)

Prima Qur’an comments: Based upon the above data, the following points can be made.

The narrative of the Qur’an.

  1. The son is a child, but old enough to walk, talk, and reason with his father (“O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice you. So tell me what you think.’ He said, ‘O my father, do as you are commanded. You will find me, if Allah wills, among the patient).
  2. Isaac’s birth announcement (Qur’an 11:69-73) comes after the sacrifice narrative in the textual order, implying the sacrifice occurred before Isaac was even conceived or was born.
  3. Every time the Qur’an mentions prophets in a sequence and Isaac and Isma’il are mentioned Isma’il always comes before Isaac.
  4. The Messengers who came to Abraham did not eat the food offered to them.
  5. Sarah laughs in astonishment that the messengers will not eat the food offered to them.
  6. There are no contradictory accounts about who laughs.
  7. There are no conflicting narratives about Ishmael being a teenager or a toddler.
  8. Abraham settles some of his descendants in Mecca. He accompanies those descendants. There is no story of Abraham abandoning his wife and son to the desert due to rivalry and jealousy.

There is a maze of contradictions in the biblical narrative.

The Eviction of Ishmael: A Teenager or a Baby?

The most prominent contradiction occurs in Genesis 21, when Sarah demands that Abraham evict Hagar and Ishmael. If we follow the ages explicitly stated in the text up to this point, the math creates a bizarre visual picture.

The Explicit Timeline Math

  • Genesis 16:16 – Abraham is 86 years old when Ishmael is born.
  • Genesis 21:5 – Abraham is 100 years old when Isaac is born. (Ishmael is now 14 years old).
  • Genesis 21:8 – Isaac grows and is weaned. In the ancient Near East, infants were typically weaned between the ages of 2 and 4.

Therefore, by the explicit chronology of the text, Ishmael must be between 16 and 18 years old when he and his mother are cast out into the wilderness of Beersheba.

The Narrative Contradiction

Despite Ishmael mathematically being a grown teenager, the vocabulary and imagery used by the author in Genesis 21 paint him as a tiny, helpless infant or toddler:

  • Genesis 21:14: Abraham takes bread and a skin of water, gives them to Hagar, “putting them on her shoulder, along with the child” (yeled in Hebrew).” A mother does not carry a 17-year-old young man on her shoulder alongside supplies.
  • Genesis 21:15: When the water runs out, Hagar “cast the child under one of the bushes.” The Hebrew verb tashlekh implies throwing, dropping, or gently placing down a helpless child, not a teenager who is physically larger than his mother.
  • Genesis 21:16: She walks away because she cannot bear to watch the child die.
  • Genesis 21:19-20: God opens her eyes to a well, and she goes to “fill the skin with water and give the boy a drink.” God then promises to protect the lad, and he “grew up.”

The Discrepancy: The theological timeline demands Ishmael be an adult/teenager so Isaac can be the younger miraculous child. But the narrative imagery in Genesis 21 completely breaks down unless Ishmael is a small child or infant. Scholars argue that Genesis 21 originally belonged to a source where Ishmael was born much later, or where Isaac’s birth happened much sooner.

Who is the “Only Son”?

Another major narrative contradiction appears during the binding of Isaac (the Akedah) in Genesis 22.

God commands Abraham:

“Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah…” (Genesis 22:2)

Later in the New Testament we have:

“By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.'” (Hebrews 11:17-18)

Critical scholars do not believe that Paul wrote Hebrews.

“For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.” (Galatians 4:22)

The Contradiction

  • By this point in the text, Ishmael is alive and well. Even though he was sent away into the desert, he is still Abraham’s biological firstborn son.
  • Later in Genesis 25:9, Ishmael returns to join Isaac in burying their father Abraham, proving they remained in contact and Ishmael was recognized as a son.

“His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah near Mamre, in the field of Ephron son of Zohar the Hittite,” (Genesis 25:9)

The “Laughing” accounts

This is a thematic contradiction regarding who laughs at the promise of Isaac’s birth, which alters the character dynamics. The name Isaac (Yitzhak) literally means “he laughs” or “laughter.”

  • Genesis 17:17 (Abraham Laughs): When God tells Abraham that 90-year-old Sarah will bear a son, Abraham falls on his face and laughs to himself in disbelief. God tells him, “No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac.”
  • Genesis 18:12 (Sarah Laughs): Soon after, three visitors reiterate the promise. This time, Sarah laughs to herself in disbelief. God asks, “Why did Sarah laugh?” Sarah denies it out of fear. But God says, “Yes you did laugh!”
  • Genesis 21:6 (Joyful Laughter): After Isaac is born, Sarah shifts the meaning of the laugh entirely: “God has brought me laughter, and everyone who hears about this will laugh with me.”

God also said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.”Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?” (Genesis 17:15-17)


“Then one of them said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son.” Now Sarah was listening at the entrance to the tent, which was behind him. Abraham and Sarah were already very old, and Sarah was past the age of childbearing. So Sarah laughed to herself as she thought, “After I am worn out and my lord is old, will I now have this pleasure?”  Then the Lord said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Will I really have a child, now that I am old?’ Is anything too hard for the Lord? I will return to you at the appointed time next year, and Sarah will have a son.”  Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, “I did not laugh.” But he( God) said, “Yes, you did laugh.” (Genesis 18: 10-15)

“Sarah said, “God has brought me laughter, and everyone who hears about this will laugh with me.”  And she added, “Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children? Yet I have borne him a son in his old age.” (Genesis 21:6-7)

Proving from the Qur’an that Ishmael was to be sacrificed and not Isaac.

It all comes down to the placement of (Qur’an 11:69-73).

We will place (Qur’an 11:69-73) before narrative of the sacrifice. Then we will place (Qur’an 11:69-73) after the narrative of the sacrifice.

In the standard arrangement of the Qur’anic surahs (not chronological revelation but canonical order), Surah 37 (the sacrifice narrative) appears before Surah 11 (the announcement of Isaac). However, even in the chronological order of revelation, the narrative logic demands that the sacrifice comes first.

So let us place (Qur’an 11:69-73) before sacrifice narrative.

We have a couple of choices.

There was ishmael and isaac. This is the Jewish, and Christian narrative.

There was only ishmael. This is the Islamic narrative.

There was only isaac. No one holds this position.

The Premise (granted for argument)

Isaac is the only son. There is no Ishmael.

The Problem

In Surah 11:69–73, the angels announce to Abraham:

  1. You will have a son named Isaac.
  2. After Isaac, you will have Jacob (Isaac’s descendant).

The Test in Surah 37

God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son.

The Logical Consequence

If the announcement of Isaac and Jacob comes before the sacrifice.Then this entails.
Abraham knows that Isaac will have a son named Jacob.Abraham also knows that if he sacrifices Isaac now, Isaac will die childless.
Therefore, Jacob will never be born.The promise of Jacob becomes impossible if Isaac dies before fathering him.
The two promises contradict each other:(a) “You will have Isaac and his descendant Jacob” vs. (b) “Sacrifice Isaac”

The Only Resolution

The announcement of Isaac and Jacob in Surah 11:69–73 MUST come AFTER the sacrifice event in Surah 37.

Because:

  • If the announcement comes after, then Abraham passed the test without knowing that his lineage would continue.
  • The test was maximal: he was willing to lose his only son and with him, any future lineage.
  • After the test is passed, God then announces Isaac and Jacob as a reward and confirmation of the promise.

Therefore

The son sacrificed in Surah 37 cannot be Isaac, because Isaac is not yet announced at the time of the sacrifice. If the son were Isaac, the announcement of Isaac and Jacob would have to come before the sacrifice—which creates a logical contradiction (a son cannot both be promised to have a descendant and be commanded to be sacrificed before that descendant can be born).

The sacrificed son is Ishmael.

“Then do they not reflect (yatadabbarūna) upon the Qur’an, or are there locks upon [their] hearts?” (Qur’an 47:24)

The second major proof.

“We gave him good news of Isaac—a prophet, and one of the righteous.” (Qur’an 37:112)

This clearly indicates that Isaac is not the mentioned son intended to be sacrificed (Al-Dhabih). Rather, it is Ishmael. For if Isaac were [the intended one], or if the intention was a general, non-specific statement, He would have said: “And We gave him the glad tidings that he would be a prophet from among the righteous.” But since He explicitly distinguished Isaac by his name, it is fitting that he is a different son than the one previously mentioned [the one to be sacrificed].

The words “a prophet” and “from among the righteous” function as circumstantial qualifiers (Hāl) that are predetermined/destined (Muqaddarah) regarding Isaac. This means that he would exist externally as a prophet firmly rooted in righteousness, though that state was not yet present at the exact moment the glad tidings were given.

Muslims are not dependent upon the Bible for anything at all!

The Qur’an’s source is Almighty Allah

We simply point out the errors and the conflict contained in that upon which the Jews and Christians rely upon.

From the theological perspective of the Muslim, the Qur’an is not changing or altering anything. The Qur’an, as a revelation of Almighty God, comes to restore not alter the narrative.

Some important points for Jews and Christians to reflect upon.

God’s continued interest in Ishmael even after he was removed from Sarah’s camp.

“God was with the boy as he grew up. He lived in the desert and became an archer. While he was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt.” (Genesis 21:20-21)

That which is claimed as the ‘Torah’ among the Jews and Christians never portrays Ishmael as a polytheist. In fact, after he and his mother were asked to leave God was still involved in the life of Ishmael. It stands to reason that Ishmael taught his people what he (Ishmael) was taught by his father (Abraham) about God.

Christians and Jews never really bothered to explore when and if that relationship became severed. Nor have they explored if or when God was no longer interested with the descendants and affairs of Ishmael.

The Christian claim that Muhammed (saw) is not a descendant of Isma’il.

Wathila b. al-Asqa’ reported:

I heard Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: Verily Allah granted eminence to Kinana from amongst the descendants of Isma’il, and he granted eminence to the Quraish amongst Kinana, and he granted eminence to Banu Hashim amonsgst the Quraish, and he granted me eminence from the tribe of Banu Hashim.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:2276)

Those who claim descent from Qahţān were called al-‘Arab al-Āribah (The Arabizing Arabs) while the descendants of Ismā’īl were called Al-‘Arab al-Musta’ribah (The Arabized Arabs). The Quraysh, the tribe of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) belonged to the class of Arabized Arabs and they were the Northern Arabs.

The Blessed Prophet (saw) comes from Ismail (as) whom is the progenitor of the musta’rab. This means they became Arab via adoption of the language and customs.

One thing that Christians cannot do is to say with 100% certainty that Muhammed (saw) is not a descendant of Isma’il.

What is certain is that Isma’il is of the seed of Abraham. This is something that Jews nor Christians deny. We are not dependent upon their genealogical records. In the case of Christianity this is especially so because until today they cannot get right the genealogical records of Christ Jesus.

Mecca seems so far for Abraham to have traveled to?

Based on the biblical itinerary, the total journey from Ur to Canaan by way of Haran would have been approximately 1,050 miles (1,690 km). So why is it that Abraham can travel this far but not to Mecca?

Keep in mind the Muslim tradition about Abraham, Ismā’īl and the Kabba is not dependent upon the Jewish or Christian tradition.

The Pentateuch tself is not relied upon by historians as an accurate telling of events.

The Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) itself does not explicitly claim that Moses wrote the entire five-book collection. These are claims made by tradition. So if Moses did not write it who did? It would also have to be aware of the debates surrounding whether or not the Pentateuch is considered a verbal or written inspiration.


1. Centuries removed from the source.
2. Compiled by multiple sources.
3. Lack of external corroboration. For example, the scale of the exodus has no external corroboration. Nothing from Egyptian, Canaanite, or Mesopotamian historical archeological records.
4. Post Mosaic additions. Passages such as the account of Moses’ death.

Based upon the Bible who has the superior genetic line? Abraham’s child with Hagar or Abraham’s child with Sarah?

“So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife.” (Genesis 16:3)

Abraham is said to reveal that his wife Sarah is his sister. They share the same father but not the same mother.

Abraham says:

“Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife.” (Genesis 20:12)

Accordingly the god of the Bible found no other partner suitable for Abraham. Even though later this god revealed the following:

“‘If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They are to be publicly removed from their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.” (Leviticus 20:17)

“Cursed is anyone who sleeps with his sister, whether the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother.” (Deuteronomy 27:22)

“I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” (Genesis 12:3)

So now will this god curse himself? Will the god of the Bible curse himself since he says cursed is anyone who sleeps with his sister and the Bible claims Sarah is Abrahams sister?

All this talk about nothing.

Here we go. Here is the secret sauce that Christians scholars would prefer their people not to think about.

The prophecy of being blessed through Abraham’s offspring has not yet been fulfilled during Christ time on Earth!

“Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from their people.’ Indeed, beginning with Samuel, all the prophets who have spoken have foretold these days. And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’” (Acts 3:19-25)

We would encourage you to see how the various Christian sects interpret the above text. Especially the phrase: ‘times of refreshing‘. What you will find out is that accordingly, the prophecy was partially fulfiled in Jesus and is only completely fulfilled when he returns and starts to kill everyone who does not believe in him!

Also, notice the word ‘offspring’ and not specifically the line of Issac.

“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’ (Luke 19:27)

How are all the people of the earth to be blessed when Jesus comes back and starts slaughtering a good number of those who will not accept him as king?

Textual corruption of Genesis 16:12. Defaming of Ishmael.

The Hebrew Text Compared

VersionGenesis 16:12 Hebrew TextLiteral Word-for-Word Translation
Masoretic (MT)וְהוּא יִהְיֶה פֶּרֶא אָדָם יָדוֹ בַכֹּל וְיַד כֹּל בּוֹ“And he will be a wild-ass of a man, his hand in all, and the hand of all in him“
Samaritan (SP)וְהוּא יִהְיֶה פָּרָה אָדָם יָדוֹ בַכֹּל וְיַד כֹּל בּוֹ“And he will be a fruitful man, his hand in all, and the hand of all in him“

The Preposition Pivot: “Against” vs. “With”

Notice that for the second half of the phrase (yado vakol veyad kol bo), the Hebrew words are identical in both texts.

The entire difference in English translations comes down to the Hebrew preposition בּ (Bēth / “ba-” or “bo”). This preposition is highly fluid and can mean “in,” “with,” “against,” or “by” depending on the context:

  1. The “Against” Interpretation: When a text pairs a “hand” coming into or upon someone (yado ba…), it is standard Hebrew idiom for opposition or striking (similar to the English phrase “to lay a hand on someone”). Because the Masoretic text starts with “wild ass” (a creature of conflict), translators render the preposition as “against.”
  2. The “With” Interpretation: If you read the Samaritan variant where the verse starts with “fruitful man,” rendering the preposition as “against” creates a jarring contradiction. A “fruitful, blessed man” wouldn’t logically be in constant warfare. Therefore, translators smoothing out the Samaritan text interpret the exact same preposition as “with” or “engaged with” to maintain internal consistency.

However, look how the Christians have tampered with the text in their translations here:

https://biblehub.com/genesis/16-12.htm

“He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.” (New International Version).

However, even in the above link there is an admission of a textual variant that changes the meaning.

“And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.” (KIng James Bible and New King James Version)

““He will be a wild donkey of a man, His hand will be against everyone, And everyone’s hand will be against him; And he will live to the east of all his brothers.” (NASB 1995 NASB 1997. )

The New International version quoted above also has: Or live to the east / of

“He will be fertile of man. His hand will be with everyone. And everyone’s hand will be with him. And he will live among all his brothers.” (Genesis 16:12)

Source: (The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah: First English Translation Compared with the Masoretic Version (Edited and Translated by Benyamim Tsedaka and Sharon Sullivan, Eerdmans Publishing, 2013) page 34)

You may also be interested in reading the following:

The Way of Life that existed before Christianity and Judaism.
Genesis chapter 3 separates Islam and Christianity.
Genesis 11, the Qur’an, and the Anthropology of Language.
Muslims read Genesis chapter 6. The flood of Noah.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 14, 2026 · 5:50 am

Who Knew the Dream Better? Ibn al-Arabi vs. Prophet Ibrahim (as) – and Why Mustafa Akyol Gets It Wrong.

“And when Ibrahim was tried by his Lord with certain words, which he fulfilled.” (Qur’an 2:124)

“Then when he reached with him the (age of) working he said, “Oh my son! Indeed, I have seen in the dream that I am sacrificing you, so look what you see.” He said, “Oh my father! Do what you are commanded. You will find me, if wills Allah, of the patient ones.” (Qur’an 37:102)

“Then when they submitted and Ibrahim laid him on the side of his forehead
for sacrifice. We called out to him: “Oh Ibrahim! You have already fulfilled the vision.” Indeed this is how We reward the good-doers. For this was obviously a clear trial.” (Qur’an 37:103-106)

“And we ransomed him with a tremendous sacrifice. And we left for him the hereafter. Peace be on Ibrahim. Thus we reward the good doers. Indeed he was of Our believing slaves. And we gave him glad tidings of Isaac, a Prophet among the righteous.” (Qur’an 37:107-112)

﷽ 

There was some really interesting, and engaging back and forth between Mustafa Akyol & Dr. Abdullah bin Hamid Ali on these text. Mustafa Akyol appealed to the mystic Ibn al-Arabi in the exchange.

Abdullah bin Hamid Ali: He is the Founding Director of the Lamppost Education Initiative. He serves as an associate professor of Islamic law and Prophetic Tradition at Zaytuna College in Berkeley, California (2007-present). He holds a Ph.D. in Cultural and Historical Studies in Religion (2016) and an M.A. in Ethics and Social Theory (2012) from the Graduate Theological Union. He obtained his B.A. (ijaza ‘ulya) in Islamic Law (Shariah) from the prestigious Al-Qarawiyin University of Fes, Morocco in 2001. He is an Ashari in theology and a Maliki in matters of jurisprudence.

Mustafa Akyol: Mustafa Akyol: He is a journalist and columnist. Notable for his post-modernist and liberal reform views. Since 2018, Akyol has been a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank founded and financially supported by the Koch brothers, right wing politicians.

This blog entry is in regard to an exchange that happened between Abdullah bin Hamid Ali and Mustafa Aykol. We provide our comments when necessary.

Now Mustafa Akyol had made the following post:

Mustafa Akyol stated:

“It is worth pondering: Did God really command Abraham (initially) to sacrifice his son? Many Muslims & other Abrahamic monotheists may say, “yes.” But there is an alternative view in Islam: There was no such divine command. Abraham just misinterpreted his dream.”-Mustafa Akyol

(The page is from my book, “Reopening Muslim Minds.”)

“Why is this important? Because the dominant view supports divine command theory: Whatever God commands, that is ethically right. The other view envisions a principled God: He will only command what is objectively ethical.” -Mustafa Akyol

Prima-Qur’an comments: The obvious problem with Mustafa’s assertion is who or what decides what a principled God would entail? Who also decides what is objectively ethical?

Abdullah bin Hamid Ali responds.

This post was responded to by Dr. Abdullah Bin Hamid Ali with:

To which Mustafa Aykol responded with:

To which Dr. Abdullah bin Hamid Ali responds with:

Prima-Qur’an comments: At this point in the exchange, Dr. Abdullah Bin Hamid Ali noted that Mustafa Akyol had transmitted errors made by others in the past. In particular to viewpoints attributed to the Hanafi school that they did not hold.

Rejoinder from Mustafa

Prima-Qur’an comments: There are a number of problems with the mystic Ibn Al Arabi’s view. He seems that Allah (swt) had veiled him from the truth of the matter.

From the text posted above:

“The state of sleep is the plane of the Imagination and Abraham did not interpret [what he saw], for it was a ram that appeared in the form of Abraham’s son in the dream, while Abraham believed what he saw [at face value] So his Lord rescued his son from Abraham’s misapprehension by the Great Sacrifice [of the ram], which was the true expression of his vision with God, of which Abraham was unaware.”

“Have you not considered what the Apostle of God said to Abu Bakr concerning the interpretation of visions when he said, “I was right in some cases and mistaken in others?” Abu Bakr asked him to acquaint him in which of them he had been right and in which
wrong, but he did not tell him.”

“Thus were the cattle [symbols for years of scarcity and plenty. Had he been true to the vision he would have killed his son, for he believed that it was his son he saw, although with God it was nothing other than the Great Sacrifice in the form of his son.”

“Thus Joseph’s master says, If you will interpret the vision. Interpretation means to pass from the form of what one sees to something beyond it. Thus were the cattle [symbols] for years of scarcity and plenty. Had he (Ibrahim) been true to the vision he would have killed his son, for he believed that it was his son he saw, although with God it was nothing other than the Great Sacrifice in the form of his son.”

Prima-Qur’an comments: Ibn Al Arabi as someone making egregious blunders one after the other.

  1. Ibn Al Arabi the one who did not have the dream knows better than Ibrahim himself what the dream entailed?
  2. Ibn Al Arabi doesn’t help his case by stating that Yusuf (as) can interpret his dream correctly but Ibrahim (as) cannot! That is indeed very weak.
  3. Why relate the supposed conversation between Abu Bakr (ra) and the Blessed Messenger (saw) if we are to be let down with…” but he did not tell him”
  4. So now Ibn Al Arabi does what the Prophet (saw) himself did not do?
  5. “he (Ibrahim) been true to the vision he would have killed his son,” Did Ibn Al Arabi not read the Qur’an when Allah (swt) states: We called out to him: “Oh Ibrahim! You have already fulfilled the vision.” What does Ibn Al Arabi think would have happened had that voice not called out?

Rejoinder Dr. Abdullah Bin Hamid Ali

Prima-Qur’an comments: Apparently this is what Dr. Shehzad Saleem conveys what Javed Ahmed Ghamidi says as well. You can see that here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPR-hzoROaw

So Javed Ahmed Ghamidi & Mustafa Akyol are of the same view here.

Prima-Qur’an comments: To be quite honest, Dr. Abdullah Bin Hamid Ali has already shown us the clear response in his initial reply.

Questions:

What were those words that Ibrahim was tried with?

“And when Ibrahim was tried by his Lord with certain words, which he fulfilled.” (Qur’an 2:124)

“Then when they submitted and Ibrahim laid him on the side of his forehead
for sacrifice. We called out to him: “Oh Ibrahim! You have already fulfilled the vision.” Indeed this is how We reward the good-doers. For this was obviously a clear trial.” (Qur’an 37:103-106)

“Then when they submitted” Can it be said that Ibrahim and his son submitted to Satan?

Can it be said that they both submitted to something false (faulty interpretation of a dream)?

“We reward the good-doers” Can it be said that Satan rewards the doers of good?

For this was obviously a clear trial. What is there a clear trial in sacrificing a sheep or lamb? That is something people were accustomed to.

Prima Qur’an summary: What did we learn from this exchange?

This text is a reference to Ibrahim (as) being tried by Allah (swt) by certain words which he fulfilled.

The son (undisclosed) at this point. Was patient with what his father saw in his dream. His father Ibrahim (as) saw that he was to sacrifice his son.

When they had submitted (the son by submitting to the father’s authority and by this the vision given by Allah) and the father by submitting to the vision from Allah (swt). The submission itself was the fulfillment of the vision. Not the sacrificing of anything. The vision was already fulfilled.

“The answer of the Believers, when summoned to Allah and His Messenger, in order that He may judge between them, is no other than this: they say, “We hear and we obey“: it is such as these that will attain felicity.” (Qur’an 24:51)

Lastly, we see that immediately after this were the glad tidings of the second son of Ibrahim (as). That is the Prophet Isaac (as). Think about it. The willingness to sacrifice a son and not only is he sparred, but an announcement of a second son!

You were willing to sacrifice your son to Allah (swt) due to this tremendous test via submission you were awarded two sons! Subhan’Allah!

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 13, 2026 · 12:02 pm

Jews and Christians as Ransom from the Hellfire Why the Ibadi School Rejects These Hadith

But as for those who defiantly disobeyed, their refuge is the Fire. Every time they wish to emerge from it, they will be returned to it while it is said to them, “Taste the punishment of the Fire which you used to deny.” (Qur’an 32:20)

“Indeed, the righteous will be in pleasure, And indeed, the wicked will be in Hellfire. They will [enter to] burn therein on the Day of Recompense, And will not be removed from it.” (Qur’an 82:13-16)

﷽ 

There seems to be some bizarre hadith that are accepted among Sunni Muslims that indicate that Muslims who are destined for hellfire would be ransomed by the hellfire by a Christian or a Jew. Thus, the Christian or the Jew would go to hellfire in place of the Muslims!

We will give the hadith that the Sunni Muslims rely upon for this as well as some of the justifications put forward by their scholars. Then we will give the Ibadi critique of these hadith and why they do not meet our standards.

The hadith that are brought forward to support this are as follows:

Abu Musa’ reported that Allah’s Messenger (saw) said:

When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:2767a)

Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Messenger (saw) said:

No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire. ‘Umar b. Abd al-‘Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah’s Messenger (saw).

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:2767b)

Abu Burda reported Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying:

There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians. (As far as I think), Abu Raub said: I do not know as to who is in doubt. Abu Burda said: I narrated it to ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, whereupon he said: Was it your father who narrated it to you from Allah’s Apostle (saw)? I said: Yes.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:2767d)

It seems that there is also a belief held among Sunni Muslims that every person has a place for them in hell and in heaven. This is coupled with the belief that there is a pre-destined and pre-scribed number of people destined for both hell and heaven.

Allah (swt) has never described the hellfire as a place in which it becomes full.

“The Day We will ask Hell, “Are you full?” And it will respond, “Are there any more?” (Qur’an 50:30)

So let us see how Sunni Muslims at the following link try to deal with the above mentioned hadith: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/198745/does-the-fact-that-a-disbeliever-will-be-a-muslims-ransom-from-the-fire-mean-that-none-of-the-muslims-will-ever-enter-the-fire

Prima Qur’an comments: In trying to answer why the Jews and Christians in particular are singled out , the Ash’ari, Maliki, Sufi, Al-Qadi ‘Iyad said:

“Because every accountable person has a place in Paradise and a place in Hell, whoever believes truly, his place in Hell will be replaced with a place in Paradise, but for the one who does not believe it will be the opposite, and it will be as if the disbelievers took the places of the believers in Hell. Moreover, because Allah has sworn to fill Hell, it will be filled with the disbelievers so as to save the believers from the Fire. So in that regard they are like a ransom for the believers. Perhaps the reason why the Jews and Christians are singled out for mention is because they are well known for their opposition to the Muslims and for being their opposites with regard to believing in the Messenger, which dictates that they should be saved.” End quote from Mirqaat al-Mafaateeh (8/3525). 

Prima Qur’an comments: For us we do not accept the reasoning of Qadi ‘Iyad.

Furthermore the site says:

“On the Day of Resurrection there will be a Jew or a Christian for every Muslim, who will be his ransom from the Fire. That does not contradict the fact that some Muslims sinners will enter the Fire for their sins, so that Allah may purify them thereof, because they will enter it, then they will be brought out of it by Allah’s mercy, then they will enter Paradise, where they will inherit what would have been the disbelievers’ places in it, because Allah has forbidden it to the disbelievers.”

Prima Qur’an comments: The above comment is to be dismissed for the following reasons:

  1. There is absolutely not a single statement or example anywhere in the Qur’an of the believer entering the hellfire. Not one.
  2. There is absolutely not a single statement or example anywhere in the Qur’an of the disbelievers leaving the hellfire. Not one.
  3. On the basis of Aqidah (Creed) the above statement makes no sense. Because if there is a place reserved in hell and heaven for every person created are we truly to believe that the Blessed Prophet (saw), The Prophets in general, small children and so forth have an abode in hellfire? May Allah forgive us and guide us to the truth.
  4. On the basis of Mantiq (Logic) the above statement makes no sense. It’s as if the belief is there is an abode in heaven and hell for all creation but one takes the place of the other, which means there would be empty or reserved spots in both heaven and hell if this was a one to one to every person who has ever lived.

“The words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), “Allah (swt) will give every Muslim a Jew or a Christian, and He will say: This is your ransom from the Fire.” Indicate that this bounty will include all the Muslims, with no exceptions, because ransom is salvation, as mentioned above, and salvation will be for every Muslim. That is not contradicted by the fact that he may enter the Fire, because his entering it will be for the purpose of purification.”

Prima Qur’an comments: The above comment is dismissed for the following reasons:

  1. “Allah (swt) will give every Muslim” is contradicted by text that state: “There would come people amongst the Muslims.” So which did the Blessed Prophet (saw) say?
  2. On the basis of Aqidah (Creed) the above statement makes no sense. Because if there is a place reserved in hell and heaven for every person created are we truly to believe that the Blessed Prophet (saw), The Prophets in general, small children and so forth have an abode in hellfire? We seek refuge in Allah from such beliefs!
  3. There is absolutely not a single statement or example anywhere in the Qur’an of the believer entering the hellfire. Not one.
  4. There is absolutely not a single statement or example anywhere in the Qur’an of the disbelievers leaving the hellfire. Not one.

The Ibadi objection.

Our core argument is that these ahadith contradict the clear, unambiguous muhkamat of the Qur’an.

  • The wicked will not be removed from Hell (82:13-16). This directly contradicts the idea that anyone leaves Hellfire after entering.
  • Disbelievers will be told “Taste the punishment… you used to deny” (32:20). There is no escape clause.

Therefore, any hadith that suggests:

  • A Jew or Christian can be a “ransom” for a Muslim, or
  • Any believer will enter Hellfire (even temporarily), or
  • Any disbeliever will leave Hellfire

must be shadh (anomalous) or munkar (rejected), regardless of its chain. A sahih chain does not override a sahih text (the Qur’an).

For the Ibadi, this is sufficient to reject these hadith.

The Ibadi Mustalah al-Hadith. We focus on illah (pl. ‘ilal) which refers to a subtle, hidden defect that undermines the authenticity of a hadith, despite its chain of narrators appearing perfectly sound on the surface.

First thing we can notice is that in the matn (the actual text) of the hadith there are some quite notably strange peculiarities.

Defect #1

“Umar b. Abd al-‘Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah’s Messenger.”

This shows that Umar b. Abd al-‘Aziz took issue with the transmission and demanded that the narrator swear an oath regarding it.

Defect #2

If he was satisfied with the oath he would not need to have included that in the transmission. However, the one who transmits includes the doubt and includes the oath.

The defects as discussed above indicates the narration was mawquf (stopping at a Companion) or mudtarib (shaky). Swearing an oath is not a method of authentication in hadith sciences—it reveals doubt.

Defect #3.

Why the mention of Jews and Christians being a ransom and not mention the Sabians or Zoroastrians or others? What makes the Jews and Christians particularly targeted?

This suggests takhsis (specification) without a Qur’anic basis. If Hell must be filled, any disbeliever would suffice. Mentioning Jews/Christians alone hints at polemical or historical insertion (e.g., early Muslim-Jewish-Christian disputes).

Defect #4. Some what related to defect #3 is that Seeing that the Jews and Christians are Mushrik, why not just simply say that the Mushrik are a ransom?

Defect #5. The conflicting nature of the text:

a) There would come people amongst the Muslims

b) No Muslim would die but Allah would admit

c) Allah would deliver to every Muslim

So is it every Muslim or a group from among the Muslims? That is a huge difference.

A clear idtarab (confusion) in the matn. A prophetic statement would not vacillate between universal and partial inclusion.

Defect #6. Abu Raub said: I do not know as to who is in doubt. Meaning he has doubts about who has doubts about this transmission: Did Umar b. Abd al-‘Aziz express doubt about the transmission, or was doubt expressed about Umar b. Abd al-‘Aziz’s transmission?

This is a sanad collapse. When transmitters themselves cannot identify the source of doubt, the hadith becomes majhul (unknown) and is discarded.

The Ibadi school, Ahl al-Haqq wa-l istiqama (The People of Truth and Straightness) have more than sufficient reasons to dismiss the above hadith. The attempts to explain them by Sunni scholars are not convincing.

We also want to share with you (the respected readers) an easy identifier to show that a hadith which has been classified as ‘sahih’ (sound) itself has doubtful things within it.

Many of you have possibly read our article in which we ripped apart a hadith classified as ‘sahih’ that was attributed to the Blessed Prophet (saw).

Khawarij are the dogs of hellfire!!

The above article contains the following hadith:

“Abu Umamah saw heads (of the Khawarij) hanging on the streets of Damascus. He said: ‘The dogs of the Fire and the worst dead people under the canopy of the heavens. The best dead men are those whom these have killed.’ He then recited: On the Day when some faces will become white and some faces will become black… (3:106) until the end of the Ayah. I said to Abu Umamah: ‘Did you hear IT from the Messenger of Allah (saw)?’ He said: ‘If I had not heard IT but one time, or two times, or three times, or four times – until he reached seven – I would not have narrated it to you.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:3000)

Now, we also want to share with you two more hadith and then we want to discuss something about the matn or text. It is absolutely relevant to this blog entry.

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet (saw) said, “A group of Israelites were lost. Nobody knows what they did. But I do not see them except that they were cursed and changed into rats, for if you put the milk of a she-camel in front of a rat, it will not drink it, but if the milk of a sheep is put in front of it, it will drink it.” I told this to Ka`b who asked me, “Did you hear it from the Prophet (saw) ?” I said, “Yes.” Ka`b asked me the same question several times. I said to Ka`b. “Do I read the Torah? (i.e. I tell you this from the Prophet.)“

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:2997a) & Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3305)

Now what is very eye opening is that in the hadith above about a group of the Children of Israel turned into rats, or the hadith about the khawarij being the dogs of hellfire, or about Jews and Christians being ransom for Muslims from hellfire.

There are three things that the keen eye will notice about all of these hadith transmissions.

  1. There is doubt expressed in the transmission.
  2. One of the transmitters is having big doubts about what is being transmitted to him.
  3. The inclusion of the doubt is included in the transmission rather than omitting it altogether.

We have extremely rigid methods for accepting narrations attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw).

There are theological views among the Sunni Muslims that teach things that have no basis in the Qur’an.

Among them are:

  • That a believer can enter into hellfire.
  • That a person may exit the hellfire.

Because the reality of these beliefs is established among the theological schools of Sunni Muslims, it has led them to have some subpar standards for grading and accepting narrationsattributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw).

If you have found the above entry beneficial we invite you to read the following:

Do Sunni Muslims believe animals can go to hell?
Proof from the Qur’an: The punishment of hellfire is ever lasting.
The punishment of hellfire is ever lasting -comment from Zheyn

May Allah (swt) Forgive the Ummah.

May Allah (swt) Guide the Ummah.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,