“The Jews say, ‘The Christians have no ground whatsoever to stand on,’ and the Christians say, ‘The Jews have no ground whatsoever to stand on,’ though they both read the Scripture, and those who have no knowledge say the same; Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning their differences.” (Qur’an 2:113)
﷽
There are three approaches that Muslims should take, with Jews and Christians in particular. This is, of course, under scenarios of antagonism between our faiths. One scenario of genuine inquiry.
Scenario one. They choose to attack Muslims through force of arms.
Those Jews and Christians that meet Muslims with their military and armies should be fought until they are vanquished and subdued. All Muslims who meet them on a field of battle should utterly lay waste to them! Those who have the audacity to attack Muslims!
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Qur’an 9:29)
&
“Fight in the cause of Allah against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors.” (Qur’an 2:190)
However, if they or anyone, for that matter, is inclined to live in peace with us, we live in peace with them.
“If the enemy is inclined towards peace, make peace with them. And put your trust in Allah. Indeed, He ˹alone˺ is the All-Hearing, All-Knowing.” (Qur’an 8:61)
Scenario two. Those who wage war against Islam with their tongues and their words.
“This is the truth from your Lord, so do not be one of those who doubt.” Now, whoever disputes with you ˹O Prophet˺ concerning Jesus after full knowledge has come to you, say, “Come! Let us gather our children and your children, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves—then let us sincerely invoke Allah’s curse upon the liars.” “Certainly, this is the true narrative, and there is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Allah. And indeed, Allah ˹alone˺ is the Almighty, All-Wise.” “If they turn away, then surely Allah has ˹perfect˺ knowledge of the corruptors.” (Qur’an 3:60-63)
We are not aware that from the Sunnah of the Blessed Prophet (saw) that he (saw) had formal debates with Christians or Jews.
Too many Muslims are involved in debates with Christians and Jews who have the darkest of hearts and the most vile of tongues.
“And whoever Allah does not bless with light will have no light!” (Qur’an 24:40)
This applies to the majority of those attacking Islam using their tongue today. The ones you see on social media and other platforms. There is no debating them. For what? The truth has come. Their hearts are not open to it. May Allah’s curse be on the liars and be done with it.
We have never seen any debate in which the other side changed their position. Not only that, but such debates are not for those who are already firm in what they believe. They are usually for people who are seeking the truth. Seeking the truth does not come about from mud-slinging, and ego and who is the better rhetorician and who can recall the most information. Truth comes about through sincere prayer, contemplation and reflection. Reading from the best in scholarship that each side has to offer.
We have seen Muslims lower themselves by debating the most vile and heinous among them. May Allah guide them to the correct course.
Scenario three. They are Jews or Christians who have doubt in their own faith, and they have genuine inquiry.
“Invite to the Way of your Lord with wisdom, kind advice, and reason with them in a way that it is better. Surely, your Lord knows best who has gone astray from His Way, and He knows best those who are guided.” (Qur’an 16:125)
They have come not to attack us with their hands or their tongues. Now, even in this situation, the Muslim must use discernment from those who may come with ulterior motives or under pretension to learn.
However, these are the people whom Muslims should focus their time and energy on. People who are sincere. Those Christians and Jews insh’Allah should be invited with the utmost of sincerity and love. Allah (swt) will cast his light into their hearts.
They will be the ones who marry our brothers and our sisters. They will marry our sons and our daughters. If our mother or father dies, one of them could be the one to marry our father or mother. They will be the one’s to fight and bleed alongside us against the tide of darkness in this world. They will be the ones who perform the funeral prayer over us and we over them. That is because they will have joined us in faith.
The Qur’an has made it very clear that not all the Jews and not all the Christians are going to embrace Islam.
The Qur’an has made it very clear that no Messiah or salvific figure will come in the future and bring all the Jews and Christians to Islam.
In fact, the Qur’an teaches us that not one sect of Jews will prevail over the others. The Qur’an also teaches us that not one sect of Christians will prevail over the others.
“And the Jews say, “The hand of Allah is chained.” Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His hands are extended; He spends however He wills. And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief.So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. ” (Qur’an 5:64)
“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)
Muslims should let them be and especially not disturb their places of worship. We were appalled to hear of a Muslim youtuber/Influencer — influenced by the devil, it seems, he went into a Catholic Church to pray. What is worse, this person seeks to mock Allah (swt)!
“The Hypocrites – they think they are over-reaching Allah, but He will over-reach them: When they stand up to prayer, they stand without earnestness, to be seen of men, but little do they hold Allah in remembrance.” (Qur’an 4:142)
For likes, for clicks, for revenue! Stirring up animosity with people of other faiths in their house of worship! Thankfully, the churchgoers were gracious to the man. If it was up to us, we would have him tied up to a pole and scourged! Hopefully, that would serve as a deterrent against any other miscreants.
In summation. We can live side by side with Jews and Christians. However, we do not think we need to be wasting our time and energies on debating with them. Again, if they attack us by force of arms, we lay waste to them. If they attack us by the tongue—the prayer of mutual cursing of Allah upon the liars. The sincere among them, the broken-hearted among them, the ones who see the light of Islam, we should welcome them home. To the place that Allah has called them.
“And one of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the diversity of your languages and colours. Surely in this are signs for those of knowledge.” (Qur’an 30:22)
﷽
When a Muslim reads the Qur’an they find that the diversity of human languages is a sign for people of knowledge.
The Tower of Babel: Genesis chapter 11
“Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.”
“They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”
“But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
“So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel[c]—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.” (Genesis 11:1-9)
When a Muslim reads the Biblical account found in Genesis 11 concerning the origin of the various languages the Muslim walks away very dissapointed.
The motive of the god of Genesis 11 to confuse human language.
The people say: “Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves.”
Then the god of Genesis 11 states: The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.”
If that is the case, why has the god in Genesis 11 allowed for even greater achievements? For example, the Statue of Liberty, the pyramids, the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Empire State Building, the Buruj in Dubai. Why allow humans eventually to travel into space even exceeding the height of any human-made structure?
The origin of the different languages of humanity.
“Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.”
Come, let usgo down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
“So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel[c]—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world.”
Does this not go against what modern anthropology has taught us about the origin of language? This text seems to imply that the god of Genesis 11 confused their language. In fact, it directly states that is why the tower is called Babel, which is also an etymological error. As babel means gate of the god(s).
Does Genesis 11 contradict modern anthropology on language origins?
Language diversity is natural, developing through geographic isolation, migration, cultural drift, and time—not from a single divine punitive act.
The world’s language families (Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan, Afroasiatic, etc.) diverged over tens of thousands of years, not in a single generation.
The etymological error about “Babel”
Biblical claim
Linguistic reality
“Babel” (בָּבֶל – Bavel) means “confusion” (balal – בָּלַל, “to mix”) because Elyon and his gods in Genesis 11 confused language there.
In Akkadian (the actual language of Babylon), Bāb-ilim means “Gate of God” (Bāb = gate, ilim = gods).
The god of Gensis 11 has no foresight.
“If, as one people speaking the same language, they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
This does not show appropriate foresight for a deity that is claimed to be all knowing and knows the future. Why? What is to stop people from learning foreign languages? In fact, we learn foreign languages today with ease. When it says scattered, it does not say permanently scattered. Humans from diverse ethnic groups and tribes frequently travel to diverse regions of the world. If the goal was to keep humans from repeating this mistake by making their languages diverse and scattering them, what is to stop them from learning each other’s languages, meeting up and attempting the whole thing all over again?
If the god of Genesis 11 had the goal to permanently prevent unified human rebellion by confusing language and scattering people, then the intervention fails spectacularly because:
Humans learn foreign languages – Babel didn’t create permanent barriers. It created a temporary inconvenience. People have been learning each other’s languages for millennia. Translators, diplomats, traders, and travelers exist.
Humans reunite across distances – Scattering didn’t prevent migration, trade, conquest, or global communication. The Roman Empire, the Silk Road, the internet, and international air travel prove that scattering is not permanent.
Humans could simply rebuild – Nothing in the text says the god of Genesis 11 will intervene again if they try. Nothing stops future generations from agreeing on a common language (like English as a global lingua franca) and building another tower.
So a literal reading forces this absurd conclusion: Either the god of Genesis 11 didn’t foresee that humans would learn languages and reunite, or the god of Genesis 11 did foresee it and the intervention was pointless.
Possible Christian Responses (and Why They Fail)
Defense 1.
“God confused language permanently by creating irreducible differences.”
Prima Qur’an response:
No. Humans learn second languages constantly. Linguistic difference is a barrier, not an impossibility.
Defense 2.
“God scattered them too far to ever reunite.”
Prima Qur’an response:
History proves otherwise. Humans have circled the globe.
Defense 3.
“God’s goal was not permanent prevention but to slow them down or teach a lesson.”
Prima Qur’an response:
Then the text’s reasoning (“nothing they plan will be impossible”) is overblown. A temporary slowdown doesn’t solve the problem.
Defense 4.
““God was being merciful—scattering prevented worse sin, not the same sin again.”
Prima Qur’an response:
Then why not just say that? And why wouldn’t they just try again later?
Defense 5.
“Learning languages is hard work, and God knew they wouldn’t bother.”
Prima Qur’an response:
They built a giant brick tower with tar mortar. Learning another language is easier than that.
Defense 6.
““This is not a literal history; it’s a story about why the world is divided.”
Prima Qur’an response:
This works! But it abandons literal divine action.
If the god of Genesis 11 is all-knowing (knows the future perfectly) and all-powerful (can do anything), then:
The god of Genesis 11 would have known that confusing language and scattering people would not permanently stop them from reuniting.
Therefore, either:
The god of Genesis 11 was not trying to permanently stop them (so the text’s stated reason is misleading or incomplete), OR
The text is not a reliable account of what an all-knowing deity would actually do (so it’s a human-authored story projecting human concerns onto God), OR
The deity in this story is not the all-knowing, all-powerful God of later theology (but a more limited, anthropomorphic divine being who can be surprised and must improvise).
The last option is actually quite consistent with early Genesis. In Genesis 6, this god regrets making humans and is grieved. In Genesis 11, this god says “Come, let us go down and see” and then “If they have begun this, then nothing will be impossible.” This deity learns, observes, and responds—it does not act with perfect foreknowledge of future human behavior.
If you read Genesis 11 as literal history describing an all-knowing God’s actions, the plan makes no sense. It’s like locking a door but leaving the key in the lock, then being surprised when people open it again.
The Muslim who reads the Qur’an does not need to be at loggerheads with anthropology. Especially when it comes to the study of languages.
“And one of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the diversity of your languages and colours. Surely in this are signs for those of knowledge.” (Qur’an 30:22)
The diversity of human languages is not some half-concocted obstacle that was sudden divine punitive act. Rather the diversity of our languages is something to celebrate, and to investigate. It is a sign of Allah (swt).
May Allah (swt) guide the Jews and Christians so they do not end up in the hellfire.
“Whosoever is rightly guided is only rightly guided for the sake of his own soul, and whosoever is astray is only astray to its detriment. None shall bear the burden of another. And never do We punish till We have sent a messenger. And when We desire to destroy a town, We command those who live a life of luxury within it; yet they commit iniquity therein. Thus the Word comes due against it and We annihilate it completely. How many generations have We destroyed since Noah’s time? Sufficient is your Lord to note and see the sins of His servants” (Qur’an 17:15-17)
﷽
When a Muslim reads Genesis chapter 6 we cannot help but to feel empathy and pity for the Agnostic or the Atheist. The presentation of God on this one page of the Bible has been enough to cast severe doubt into the hearts and minds of many Christians.
Before we look at the contents of Genesis chapter 6 it is helpful to look at what some of the luminaries of Christianity thought on the matter.
Chrisitans believe that the Holy Spirit has guided their learned people concerning the truth about these matters.
“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” (John 16:13)
The Church Father Justin Martyr says:
“But the whole earth, as the Scripture says, was inundated, and the water rose in height fifteen cubits above all the mountains: so that it is evident this was not spoken to the land, but to the people who obeyed Him: for whom also He had before prepared a resting-place in Jerusalem, as was previously demonstrated by all the symbols of the deluge; I mean, that by water, faith, and wood, those who are afore-prepared, and who repent of the sins which they have committed, shall escape from the impending judgment of God.”
“And Moses showed that the flood lasted forty days and forty nights, torrents pouring from heaven, and from the fountains of the deep breaking up, so that the water overtopped every high hill 15 cubits. And thus the race of all the men that then were was destroyed, and those only who were protected in the ark were saved; and these, we have already said, were eight. And of the ark, the remains are to this day to be seen in the Arabian mountains. This, then, is in sum the history of the deluge.”
St. Augustine of Hippo answering some objections to the universal flood says the following:
“They say, too, that the area of that ark could not contain so many kinds of animals of both sexes, two of the unclean and seven of the clean. But they seem to me to reckon only one area of 300 cubits long and 50 broad, and not to remember that there was another similar in the story above, and yet another as large in the story above that again; and that there was consequently an area of 900 cubits by 150. And if we accept what Origin has with some appropriateness suggested, that Moses the man of God, being, as it is written, learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, Acts 7:22 who delighted in geometry, may have meant geometrical cubits, of which they say that one is equal to six of our cubits, then who does not see what a capacity these dimensions give to the ark? For as to their objection that an ark of such size could not be built, it is a very silly calumny; for they are aware that huge cities have been built, and they should remember that the ark was an hundred years in building. Or, perhaps, though stone can adhere to stone when cemented with nothing but lime, so that a wall of several miles may be constructed, yet plank cannot be riveted to plank by mortices, bolts, nails, and pitch-glue, so as to construct an ark which was not made with curved ribs but straight timbers, which was not to be launched by its builders, but to be lifted by the natural pressure of the water when it reached it, and which was to be preserved from shipwreck as it floated about rather by divine oversight than by human skill.”
“As to another customary inquiry of the scrupulous about the very minute creatures, not only such as mice and lizards, but also locusts, beetles, flies, fleas, and so forth, whether there were not in the ark a larger number of them than was determined by God in His command, those persons who are moved by this difficulty are to be reminded that the words every creeping thing of the earth only indicate that it was not needful to preserve in the ark the animals that can live in the water, whether the fishes that live submerged in it, or the sea-birds that swim on its surface. Then, when it is said male and female, no doubt reference is made to the repairing of the races, and consequently there was no need for those creatures being in the ark which are born without the union of the sexes from inanimate things, or from their corruption; or if they were in the ark, they might be there as they commonly are in houses, not in any determinate numbers; or if it was necessary that there should be a definite number of all those animals that cannot naturally live in the water, that so the most sacred mystery. which was being enacted might be bodied forth and perfectly figured in actual realities, still this was not the care of Noah or his sons, but of God. For Noah did not catch the animals and put them into the ark, but gave them entrance as they came seeking it. For this is the force of the words, They shall come unto you, Genesis 6:19-20 — not, that is to say, by man’s effort, but by God’s will. But certainly we are not required to believe that those which have no sex also came; for it is expressly and definitely said, They shall be male and female.For there are some animals which are born out of corruption, but yet afterwards they themselves copulate and produce offspring, as flies; but others, which have no sex, like bees. Then, as to those animals which have sex, but without ability to propagate their kind, like mules and she-mules, it is probable that they were not in the ark, but that it was counted sufficient to preserve their parents, to wit, the horse and the ass; and this applies to all hybrids. Yet, if it was necessary for the completeness of the mystery, they were there; for even this species has male and female.“
“Another question is commonly raised regarding the food of the carnivorous animals — whether, without transgressing the command which fixed the number to be preserved, there were necessarily others included in the ark for their sustenance; or, as is more probable, there might be some food which was not flesh, and which yet suited all. For we know how many animals whose food is flesh eat also vegetable products and fruits, especially figs and chestnuts. What wonder is it, therefore, if that wise and just man was instructed by God what would suit each, so that without flesh he prepared and stored provision fit for every species? And what is there which hunger would not make animals eat? Or what could not be made sweet and wholesome by God, who, with a divine facility, might have enabled them to do without food at all, had it not been requisite to the completeness of so great a mystery that they should be fed? But none but a contentious man can suppose that there was no prefiguring of the church in so manifold and circumstantial a detail. For the nations have already so filled the church, and are comprehended in the framework of its unity, the clean and unclean together, until the appointed end, that this one very manifest fulfillment leaves no doubt how we should interpret even those others which are somewhat more obscure, and which cannot so readily be discerned. And since this is so, if not even the most audacious will presume to assert that these things were written without a purpose, or that though the events really happened they mean nothing, or that they did not really happen, but are only allegory, or that at all events they are far from having any figurative reference to the church; if it has been made out that, on the other hand, we must rather believe that there was a wise purpose in their being committed to memory and to writing, and that they did happen, and have a significance, and that this significance has a prophetic reference to the church, then this book, having served this purpose, may now be closed, that we may go on to trace in the history subsequent to the deluge the courses of the two cities — the earthly, that lives according to men, and the heavenly, that lives according to God.”
Some people also point to the following text to also prove the flood was universal.
“To me this is like the days of Noah, when I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth. So now I have sworn not to be angry with you, never to rebuke you again.” (Isaiah 54:9)
Such a promise can only happen if the flood was universal (covered the whole Earth) as regional floods happen all the time.
Genesis chapter 6: What the Bible actually says.
Wickendess in the World
“When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”
“The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.”
Noah and the Flood
“This is the account of Noah and his family.”
“Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God. Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.”
“Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high. Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit high all around. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”
“Noah did everything just as God commanded him.”
Prima Qur’an comments: We have lots of questions concerning this Biblical account in Genesis 3.
The god of Genesis chapter 3 says:
” their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
The Muslim is surprised by this because the very same Bible says:
“Noah lived a total of 950 years, and then he died.” (Genesis 9:29)
It also contradicts information found in the Qur’an.
“Indeed, We sent Noah to his people, and he remained among them for a thousand years, less fifty. Then the Flood overtook them, while they persisted in wrongdoing.” (Qur’an 29:14)
Allah knows the future. Allah’s creation and plan are perfect.
Allah informs the believing Muslims the following in the Qur’an.
The Qur’an says: “Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 9:28)
“Who has perfected everything He created.” (Qur’an 32:7)
“Who created seven heavens, one above the other. You will never see any imperfection in the creation of the Most Compassionate. So look again: do you see any flaws?” (Qur’an 67:3)
However, the Bible tells us the following about it’s god.
“The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.” “for I regret that I have made them“
This goes against the idea that Allah (swt) is all knowing and that his Creation and plan are perfect.
The above depiction in Genesis 6 cannot be the description of The one and only God.
In Islam we have the Ad-Dooriyyat Al-Khams: -The Five Basic Necessities that are protected and recognized by Islamic law-Shari’ah.
Life.
Religion.
Wealth.
Lineage.
Mind (intellect).
Here as Muslims we are concerned with the Mind (intellect) here.
Indeed, religion calls for reflection and contemplation, And addresses the mind before it settles in the heart, So that faith becomes steadfast, rooted in understanding and certainty.
This account as is narrated from the Bible in Genesis chapter 3 is an assault on the Mind (intellect).
“Verily, the vilest of all creatures in the sight of Allah are those deaf, those dumb ones who do not use their reason.” (Qur’an 8:22)
“They will further say: “Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we should not (now) be among the Companions of the Blazing Fire!” (Qur’an 67:10)
The Logic of the God of Genesis Chapter 3 does not add up.
Cause of the flood in Genesis chapter 6.
We are given the following information from Genesis chapter 6.
“The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.”
&
“Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.”
However, we are also informed:
“So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”
&
“I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.”
This god’s logic for the end of humanity on the Earth is due to their wickedness and violence. However, why must the animals and birds and creatures that move along the ground be punished? Surely they cannot be attributed with wickedness?
Even if this god wanted to attribute violence to some of these creatures surely that is the mechanism by which this god ordained the very survival of a great many species?
The Logic of the god of Gesnsis Chapter 3 gets even worse!
“I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.”
Aren’t fish (and sea creatures in general) creatures that have the breath of life in them?
And if we are going to reason as Christian apologist may reason what is the wickedness and violence that the animals and birds and creatures that move along the ground do that the creatures of the sea do not due that spare them from total obliteration?
What about freshwater species?
A global flood would be a catastrophic event for freshwater life.
In Saltwater: If a freshwater fish is placed in saltwater, the opposite happens. The saltier ocean water pulls water out of the fish’s body through osmosis. Simultaneously, salt from the ocean rushes into its body.
Result: The fish would rapidly become severely dehydrated, suffer organ failure from salt toxicity, and die within minutes or hours. They cannot simply “swim and adapt.”
The tens of thousands of unique species like Bass, Trout, Catfish, Cichlids, Carp, and Guppies—along with all the frogs, salamanders, river turtles, and freshwater insects—would almost certainly go completely extinct.
On what consistsent and logical basis does the god of Genesis chapter 3 damn the Tuna but save the Trout?
The dimensions of the ark and the the keeping of two of every kind of living creature.
“This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high. Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit high all around. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks.”
“You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”
Keep in mind that the estimates of all living creatures on the Earth are as follows:
Animal Group
Number of Known/Described Species
Insects
~1,000,000 (the largest group) *
Reptiles
~12,568 *
Mammals
~6,759 *
Spiders & Arachnids
~120,000 *
Birds
~11,000 *
Amphibians
~8,000 *
*Feel free to obtain your own independent data on these figures. There are many from among these species that have gone extinct as well. Which means there would have been more in the time of Noah.
You can see above where St. Augustine of Hippo (bless his little pagan heart) had tried to justify the objections that people in his day had as well.
The Ship’s Actual Livable Space
First, the ship’s dimensions:
Length: 450 ft (135 m)
Width: 75 ft (23 m)
Height: 45 ft (14 m)
The total enclosed volume is roughly 1.5 million cubic feet (about 43,000 cubic meters). That sounds like a lot, but it’s roughly the size of a medium-sized office building or a large warehouse.
However, much of that space is structural (walls, decks, support beams). The actual livable, cage-accessible floor space is far less. A reasonable estimate for usable deck area across, say, 4 internal decks is about 100,000–120,000 square feet (approx. 10,000 square meters).
That’s about the size of two NFL American football fields (including end zones).
Now, let’s see what you need to put on those two football fields.
We need to house at least two of each species (male/female) for breeding. That’s 3 million individual animals just for the named species. And for many social species (like insects or birds), you’d need far more to maintain a viable colony.
Let’s look at the space just for the larger animals, ignoring insects for a moment:
Group
Number of Species
Minimum Pair Space Needed (very cramped)
Total Space Required
Mammals
6,759
Avg. 20 sq ft per pair (e.g., a mouse vs. an elephant)
135,180 sq ft
Birds
11,000
Avg. 5 sq ft per pair (cage space)
55,000 sq ft
Reptiles
12,568
Avg. 4 sq ft per pair
50,272 sq ft
Amphibians
8,000
Avg. 1 sq ft per pair (small terrarium)
8,000 sq ft
Arachnids
120,000
Avg. 0.1 sq ft per pair (a small jar)
12,000 sq ft
Subtotal (just these groups)
158,327 species
~260,000 sq ft
That’s already more than double the entire ship’s usable floor space (~120,000 sq ft). And we haven’t added a single insect yet!
Now add the 1 million known insect species (2 million individuals). Even if you put 100 insect pairs into a single 1 sq ft container (which would be a horrific, cannibalistic nightmare), that’s still 20,000 sq ft just for their containers. But realistically, insects need space, air, food plants, and separation (ants need colonies, beetles need logs, butterflies need flight space). You’d need a dedicated warehouse the size of the ship itself just for the insects.
This becomes more problematic when you factor the following:
“The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. ” (Gensis 7:1-3)
How long where Noah his family and all the entourage of Animals on that boat?
Genesis chapter 6 does not supply us with that information.
“And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.” (Genesis 7:24)
“And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.” (Genesis 8:3)
“For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.” (Genesis 7:4)
“And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.” (Genesis 7:12)
“Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth.” (Genesis 7:17)
So rather it be 150 days or 371 as some Christian apologist suggest this brings us to another set of complications.
The Real Problems Are Worse Than Space
Space is just the first problem. The other three are insurmountable:
A) Food and Water
A single pair of elephants needs hundreds of pounds of fresh vegetation daily. Where is that grown? How is it stored for a flood lasting weeks or months?
Freshwater fish would need massive, separate aquariums with circulating fresh water. A single 10-gallon tank per fish species? That’s 23,000 tanks just for known fish species. Noah’s ship doesn’t have the weight capacity or plumbing for that.
Insectivores (anteaters, many birds, spiders) need thousands of live insects per day. You’d need to be farming insects onboard just to feed the other animals.
B) Waste
Three million animals produce an astonishing amount of manure, urine, and dead bodies. On a ship this size, the ammonia from waste alone would poison the air within days. You’d need a dedicated industrial composting and ventilation system the size of a second ship.
C) Climate and Environment
Reptiles need heat lamps (90°F+).
Polar bears need freezing temperatures.
Amphibians need 100% humidity.
Desert spiders need bone-dry sand.
You cannot maintain these vastly different climates within a few feet of each other on a single, small ship. The energy and equipment required would fill the vessel.
As we saw above St. Augustine of Hippo is filled with statements that only an ignoramous would make. He tried to resolve some of these issues.
Examples like:
“God in His command, those persons who are moved by this difficulty are to be reminded that the words every creeping thing of the earth only indicate that it was not needful to preserve in the ark the animals that can live in the water, whether the fishes that live submerged in it, or the sea-birds that swim on its surface.”
Which shows his ignorance of the fresh water species.
“But certainly we are not required to believe that those which have no sex also came; for it is expressly and definitely said, They shall be male and female.For there are some animals which are born out of corruption, but yet afterwards they themselves copulate and produce offspring, as flies; but others, which have no sex, like bees.”
Which shows his ignorance concerning the distinction of sex among bees.
This also then circles back to the question of on what consistent logic and basis is this god of Genesis chapter 6 making these decisions.
So are we to assume that land snails whom are hermaphrodites that don’t enter the boat don’t get absolutely wrecked by the salinity of the oceans? This is a far cry from reality.
What is also interesting is that hetrosexual species need to get on the boat to be saved. Yet some how this god of Genesis chapter 6 gives special abililties to the hermaphrodites of the Earth to not be bothered by it! So who is being favoured here?
St. Augustine of Hipp does appeal to the following text of Genesis 6 to suggest how all these different species are gathered. “Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.”
So somehow these species animals, birds, reptiles made the journey from South America, North America (via the Bering Strait) then they cross what is now Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, enter Iraq and reach Mesopotamia.
So those distinctive species of millipedes from what is now called Argentina and Chile which have an average speed of roughly 0.005 mph (8 meters per hour). For reference, a garden snail moves at about 0.03 mph, making a millipede nearly 6 times slower than a snail.
While a real millipede would never attempt such a journey, we can calculate a “best-case” travel time using the math of its very slow pace. Assuming the millipede could move continuously without stopping to eat, sleep, or avoid hazards, the trip would take approximately 244 million years!!!
The hetrosexual millipede has to make an arduous journey; meanwhile the hermaphroditic snail gets to chill…
The Qur’an, Noah and the Flood
We have already quoted the verses that show that Allah (swt) knows the future and that regret is not something befitting to Allah.
The Qur’an mentions Noah-alayi salam 43 times.
When Muslims read the account of Noah (as) and the flood we do not find any of the following information.
The duration of this flood.
The geographical location of the flood.
The geographical location of Noah.
The actual number of people who went on the boat.
This is what we do find.
Noah (as) a messenger to his people not the whole of mankind.
It mentions that Noah was a prophet to his people and not the whole world.
“We had certainly sent Noah (Nuh) to his people, and he said, “O my people, worship Allah; you have no deity other than Him. Indeed, I fear for you the punishment of a tremendous Day.” (Qur’an 7:59)
“And We sent not a Messenger except with the language of his people, in order that he might make (the Message) clear for them.” (Qur’an 14:4)
The Qur’an categorically denies that the flood was over the whole Earth.
“And the people of Noah,- when they rejected the messengers, We drowned them, and We made them as a Sign for mankind; and We have prepared for (all) wrong-doers a grievous Penalty.” (Qur’an 25:37)
“And they denied him, so We saved him and those with him in the ship and made them successors, and We drowned those who denied Our signs. Then see how was the end of those who were warned.” (Qur’an 10:73)
The flood itself did not destroy all the people. Only those who denied the signs of Allah were drowned.
“Then We drowned the others.” (Qur’an 37:82)
“Then afterwards We drowned the rest.” (Qur’an 26:120)
The others and the rest are a reference to ‘those who denied Our signs.’
“But they denied him, so We saved him and those who were with him in the ship. And We drowned those who denied Our signs. Indeed, they were a blind people.” (Qur’an 7:64)
Noah (as) and his family were saved from the hardship that the flood certainly would have brought those around them.
Text from the Qur’an that are used to suggest the flood was universal as in the Genesis 6 account.
“My Lord! Do not leave a single disbeliever on (l-arḍi) earth.” (Qur’an 71:26)
This seems very clear when you read some translations of the Qur’an. However, the (l-arḍi) can mean land or the land.
“And Nuh said: My Lord! leave not upon the land any dweller from among the unbelievers.” (Qur’an 71:26 -Shakir translation)
“O my people! Enter the holy (l-arḍi) land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.” (Qur’an 5:21)
In this case if l-arḍi always means Earth in it’s totality then where is Allah (swt) addressing these people? Are they in space?
What about the Ark of Noah(as) resting on El Judi?
“And it was said, ‘Earth (yāarḍu), swallow the waters; and, heaven, abate!’ And the waters subsided, the affair was accomplished, and the Ark settled on El-Judi, and it was said: ‘Away with the people of the evildoers!'” (Qur’an 11:44)
Few quick points.
Earth again does not mean whole Earth. Notice the Arabic word has the same etymological root.
Settled on El Judi does not mean it’s peak. A boat can settle at the base of a mountain.
The animals that went on the boat with Noah.
“Our command came the and the baked Oven gushed forth with water. We said: “Load on it every (kullin) pair two, and your family, except him against whom the Word has already gone forth, and those who believe. And none believed with him, except a few.” (Qur’an 11:40)
“We then revealed our instructions to him: “Build the Ark under Our supervision and revealed instructions. And when, at Our command, the surface of the baked Oven gushed forth with water, put into it every(kullin) pair two, and members of your family, except those among them against whom the Word (Allah’s decree) has already been issued. And do not plead with Me on behalf of those who are cruel. They shall indeed be drowned.” (Qur’an 23:27)
There are things that we can definitively say about the above two verses and things we cannot definitively say about the above two verses.
It cannot mean every animal in their totality because those species that would naturally survive a flood are not included.
The word every kulli does not necessarily mean all in the sense of total without exception.
“Indeed, I found [there] a woman ruling them, and she has been given of all (kulli) things, and she has a great throne.” (Qur’an 27:23)
The word dābbatin is not in either of the above text.
Dābbatin (دَآبَّةٍ) in Arabic generally means a moving creature, animal, or beast.
“Indeed, I have relied upon Allah , my Lord and your Lord. There is no creature (dābbatin) but that He holds its forelock. Indeed, my Lord is on a path straight.” (Qur’an 11:56)
“And there is no (dābbatin)creature on [or within] the earth or bird that flies with its wings except [that they are] communities like you. We have not neglected in the Register a thing. Then unto their Lord they will be gathered.” (Qur’an 6:38)
So in the absense of time and duration of this flood it would make sense for Prophet Noah (as) to take that which would give his family provision once the deluge subsided.
We cannot say which pairs Noah was instructed to take because the text (Qur’an 11:40 & Qur’an 23:27) does not specify this.
However, it was clear to Noah what he was to take. An example could be the following:
“Eight pairs; of the sheep two (male and female), and of the goats two (male and female). Say: “Has He forbidden the two males or the two females, or (the young) which the wombs of the two females enclose? Inform me with knowledge if you are truthful.” (Qur’an 6:143)
“And of the camels two (male and female), and of oxen two (male and female). Say: “Has He forbidden the two males or the two females or (the young) which the wombs of the two females enclose? Or were you present when Allah ordered you such a thing? Then who does more wrong than one who invents a lie against Allah, to lead mankind astray without knowledge. Certainly Allah guides not the people who are wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 6:144)
ONE OF THE MOST UNDERRATED POINTS CONCERNING THE FLOOD.
“And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.” (Genesis 7:12)
The Genesis 6 account coupled with it’s informative verses outside the chapter present us with major and massive problems.
The Prerequisite Drought & Mass Extinction
To get 40 days of global rain, you first need to fill the atmosphere with an impossible amount of water vapor. The only way to do that is through massive, planet-wide evaporation.
Solar radiation would have to heat the oceans to near-boiling levels to evaporate that much water. Before a single drop of rain fell, the continents would experience a catastrophic, years-long drought. All rivers, lakes, and soil moisture would evaporate into the super-humid air. All terrestrial plants would dessicate and die within months. No seeds would survive the prolonged heat and lack of liquid water. With dead, dried vegetation covering every continent, lightning strikes would ignite global firestorms. The atmospheric oxygen levels would plummet, and the sky would turn black with soot long before the rain started. All land animals would die of thirst during the drought before the floodwaters even arrived. The ark would be collecting corpses, not living creatures.
2. Can Clouds Hold That Much Precipitation?
This is a fundamental limit of atmospheric physics. The air cannot hold an infinite amount of water.
Even at 100% humidity and scorching temperatures (100°F / 38°C), a cubic meter of air can hold at most ~40 grams of water vapor.
The Math for a Global Flood: To cover Mount Everest (29,000 ft / 8,800 m) in 40 days, you need roughly 220 meters (720 feet) of rain per hour across the entire planet.
The Impossibility: The atmosphere simply does not contain enough water. To deliver that much rain, the air would need to hold thousands of times more water vapor than physically possible before it condenses into liquid. Clouds would have to be denser than liquid water itself, which is impossible.
Think of it this way: You cannot wring a gallon of water out of a sponge that only holds a cup. The global atmosphere is that sponge.
3. The “Constants” Problem (Energy & Heat)
This is the killer. The Earth must radiate heat back into space to maintain a stable temperature. Rain releases heat.
Latent Heat Release: When water vapor condenses into rain, it releases massive amounts of energy (the same energy that heated the water to evaporate it). 40 days of global rain would release the energy equivalent of millions of hydrogen bombs detonating every second.
The Resulting Temperature: This energy would superheat the atmosphere. The rain wouldn’t be cool; it would be scalding hot (likely exceeding the boiling point of water at sea level). The flood would be a planet-wide steam bath, cooking everything alive.
The Constants Broken: The Earth’s ability to radiate heat (the Stefan-Boltzmann law) would be completely overwhelmed. The planet would not return to a normal climate for thousands of years, and the oceans would remain near boiling.
THE QUR’AN OFFERS A BETTER ALTERNATIVE.
There is only one place in the Qur’an that mentions the sky pouring rain in connection with the flood.
Rainwater is treated as more of an after thought. There is no mention of 40 days and nights of rainfall.
“So We opened the gates of the sky with pouring rain, and caused the earth to burst with springs, so the waters met for a fate already set.” (Qur’an 54:11-12)
Coupled with the above:
baked Oven gushed forth with water(Qur’an 11:40)
the surface of the baked Oven gushed forth with water,(Qur’an 23:27)
This points to a larger geological phenomena that is not connected with rainfall.
The Qur’an offers a very clean account of the phenomena that was conntect to Noah and the building of his boat. It does not have the problems and outright bizarre outburst of the god of Genesis chapter 6.
It doesn’t offer the fuzzy logic of the god of Genesis chapter 6. A capracious deity that offers no consistent logic on what basis something lives or dies.
You have to wonder that if the Qur’an was a copy from Genesis 6 (which in reality is a transcribing of events that happened before it was put to text) why not mention the location of Noah or his people?
Why not attempt to mention how long they were on their boat?
The Bible says:
“To those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water.” (1 Peter 3:20)
Why doesn’t the Qur’an attempt to number the people who were on the boat?
You may be interested to read the following:
Found! Hidden Ocean Locked Up Deep in Earth’s Mantle.
“Or do you say, “Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob, and the Tribes — they were Jews, or they were Christians”?’ Say: ‘Have you then greater knowledge, or Allah? And who does greater evil than he who conceals a testimony received from Allah? And Allah is not heedless of the things you do.” (Qur’an 2:140)
﷽
“Then set your face towards the way of life (lilddini), inclining towards truth (hanifan). The nature (fit’rata) made by Allah in which He has made men; there is no altering of Allah’s creation; that is the right way of life (l-dinu), but most people do not know.” (Qur’an 30:30)
“They say, “Be Jews or Christians [so] you will be guided.” Say, “Rather, the creed (millata) of Abraham, inclining toward truth(hanifan), and he was not of the polytheists.” (Qur’an 2:135)
“Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth (hanifan), a Muslim(mus’liman) . And he was not of the polytheists.” (Qur’an 3:67)
“Indeed, the way of life (l-dina) in the sight of Allah is Islam(l-is-lamu). And those who were given the Scripture did not differ except after knowledge had come to them – out of jealous animosity between themselves. And whoever disbelieves in the verses of Allah , then indeed, Allah is swift in [taking] account.” (Qur’an 3:19)
“Whoever desires something other than Islam (l-is’lami) as a way of life (dinan) – never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.” (Qur’an 3:85)
In this article we will see that Islam is the religion that was before Christianity or Judaism. That it is the deen al hanifan (the way of life that is upright).
When we say that Islam existed before Judaism or Christianity, we are in no way suggesting that there were people who believed in the Qur’an or the Prophet Muhammed (saw). Such a suggestion would be absolutely incredulous.
What we are saying is that if you look at what Islam means. The word itself, then yes then it is clear this has existed prior to the rise of Christianity or Judaism.
Let us start by looking at words and terminologies first.
The word Islam means: Surrender, Submission, Safety, Tranquility, Peace.
The word Muslim means: One who gains safety, peace and tranquility through surrender and submission of one’s own will to the will of Allah.
The origin of the word Christian.
Christian — a generic definition is one who professes the teachings of Christ and/or one who is a member of a Christian church. However, a better definition of Christian in the English (one loaded with theological language) would be one who, after being christened (rather than through sprinkling of water or full water immersion), then seeks to become Christ-like in their walk with God.
In Greek it would be Χριστιανός (Christianós)and this comes from the same etymological root as Χριστός or Christos, meaning anointed.
In the Bible, Jesus never called himself a Christian and neither did any of his disciples. Not once
It is a simple matter of picking up any Bible and seeing for yourself if this is the case. Rather, the first appearance of the word is in the Book of Acts.
“And when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.” (Acts 11:26)
Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” Paul replied, “Short time or long—I pray to God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains.” (Acts 26:28-29)
“However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.” (1 Peter 4:16)
So the first point is that the word “Christian” cannot be substantiated by the lips of Jesus (as) from the New Testament text at all. Agrippa simply stated that Paul wished him to join his movement that bears the name ‘Christian’. Also, Peter seems to encourage his audience to not be ashamed of this appellation “Christian” that is being given to them.
What we do find is references to the way, or in Arabic sabeel (the way, the path).
Followers of Jesus (as) were associated with terminology often referred to as ‘THE WAY’.
“And [Paul] asked for letters from him [the high priest] to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.” (Acts 9:2)
“But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the people, [Paul] withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.” (Acts 19:9)
“About that time there occurred no small disturbance concerning the Way.” (Acts 19:23)
“I [Paul] persecuted this Way to the death, binding and putting both men and women into prisons.” (Acts 22:4)
“But this I [Paul] admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets.”(Acts 24:14)
“But Felix, having a more exact knowledge about the Way, put them off, saying, ‘When Lysias the commander comes down, I will decide your case.’” (Acts 24:22)
“A voice of one calling in the wilderness:/Prepare the way for the Lord. Make Straight the paths of our God. (Isaiah 40:3)
In the Qur’an we have:
“Surely those who have believed, emigrated, and struggled in the Way of Allah—they can hope for Allah’s mercy. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 2:218)
“And do not say about those who are killed in the way of Allah , “They are dead.” Rather, they are alive, but you perceive [it] not.” (Qur’an 2:154)
“Alms are only for the poor and the needy, and the officials (appointed) over them, and those whose hearts are made to incline (to truth) and the (ransoming of) captives and those in debts and in the way of Allah and the wayfarer; an ordinance from Allah; and Allah is knowing, Wise.” (Qur’an 9:60)
Does the Qur’an call the followers of Jesus Al-Nasara?
Let us look at the word ‘Al Nasara’ which is often translated as “Christians” in English translations of the Qur’an.
The Jews say “Christians (l-nasara) have nothing [true] to stand on,” and the Christians (l-nasara) say, “The Jews have nothing to stand on,” although they [both] recite the book. Thus the polytheists speak the same as their words. But Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which they used to differ.” (Qur’an 2:113)
The Qur’an is not saying anything about whom these Nasara are here other than they are a group who see themselves distinct from the group that are called “Jews.”
The other point is that both of these groups are referencing literature that is common and authoritative to both groups. The Qur’an is not saying that this literature is authoritative or correct but merely that these two groups are referencing the same sources and coming away with radically different takes that put them at odds with one another.
“And with those who say, We are Christians (nasara), We made a covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of, therefore We excited among them enmity and hatred to the day of resurrection; and Allah will inform them of what they did.” (Qur’an 5:14)
The above verse acknowledges that there are whole factions under the umbrella terminology ‘Nasara’ . That these factions clash with one another. Therefore, it is foolhardy to think that the term ‘Nasara’ is a blanket term to refer to all those who call themselves Christians. It can refer to those who were faithful before the breaking of the covenant as well as those who came after.
This verse is also a strong rejection of the belief held by many Muslims that Jesus (as) comes back and unites Christians under the banner of Islam. Allah (swt) says differently that they would continue to be in opposition to one another until the day of judgment itself.
For example, in the above verse (Qur’an 2:113) it references a group of these ‘Nasara’ that share an authoritative source similar to that of Jews.
Whereas in the following verse, Qur’an 9:30 it could very well refer to another group of ‘Nasara’ who would not accept a common authoritative religious source with Jews.
“The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah “; and the Christians (l-nasara) say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?” (Qur’an 9:30)
One of the beliefs of at least one faction under the appellation (l-nasara) is that they believe that the Messiah is the son of Allah.
“But the Jews and the Christians (wal-nasara) say, “We are the children of Allah and His beloved.” Say, “Then why does He punish you for your sins?” Rather, you are human beings from among those He has created. He forgives whom He wills, and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them, and to Him is the [final] destination.” (Qur’an 5:18)
Allah (swt) acknowledges that both the Jews and the Nasara make claims of being the children of Allah. The appellation of ‘children of Allah’ implies some time of special or favoured status with Allah (swt) which meets swift rebuke.
“Strongest among men in enmity to the believers will you find the Jews and All Polytheist; and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, “We are Christians (nasara)“: because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.” (Qur’an 5:82)
This verse says that, in general, the Jews and all Polytheists will have the strongest hate towards Muslims. The verse also acknowledges that at least some under the blanket umbrella term ‘nasara’ would we find those who are near to the Muslims in love.
Now recall our definition of Islam & Muslim
The word Islam means: Surrender, Submission, Safety, Tranquility, Peace.
The word Muslim means: One who gains safety, peace and tranquility through surrender and submission of one’s own will to the will of Allah.
Is there anything in the sources that Christians today hold sacred that would indicate that Jesus (as) was someone who submitted his will to Allah?
“Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” (James 4:7)
“The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.” (Romans 8:7)
Also, do note that the concept of gaining wholeness, safety through reliance on submission and surrender to Allah is not a concept unfamiliar with the Bible according to Christians themselves!
The word Muslim/Islam equivalent in the Bible itself.
“Submit to God, and be at peace with him; in this way prosperity will come to you. Listen to his instructions, and store them in your heart. If you return to the Almighty, you will be restored— so clean up your life. If you give up your lust for money and throw your precious gold into the river, the Almighty himself will be your treasure. He will be your precious silver.” (Job 22:21-25)
Origin of the word Jew or Judaism?
Unlike the word Christian, which, as we saw, was used thrice in the New Testament and never once by the lips of Jesus (as), the word Judaism is nowhere to be found in the TNCH.
TNCH is what Jews would call, the Law, the Writings and the Prophets. *Note* To be fair to the differences in the world of Judaism we want to mention that Karaite Judaism do not recognize as sacred script the Writings and the Prophets nor the oral torah.
However, the word Jew can be found in both the New Testament and the TNCH.
“The word “Jew” (in Hebrew, “Yehudi”) is derived from the name Judah, which was the name of one of Jacob’s twelve sons. Judah was the ancestor of one of the tribes of Israel, which was named after him. Likewise, the word Judaism literally means ‘Judah-ism.” that is, the religion of Yehudim.” -jewishvirtuallibrary.
“Originally, the term Yehudi referred specifically to members of the tribe of Judah, as distinguished from the other tribes of Israel. However, after the death of King Solomon, the nation of Israel was split into two kingdoms: the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel (I Kings 12; II Chronicles 10). After that time, the word Yehudi could properly be used to describe anyone from the kingdom of Judah, which included the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, as well as scattered settlements from other tribes. The most obvious biblical example of this usage is in Esther 2:5, where Mordecai is referred to as both Yehudi and a member of the tribe of Benjamin.”–jewishvirtuallibrary.
“In approximately 722 B.C.E., the kingdom of Israel was conquered by Assyria and the ten tribes were exiled from the land (II Kings 17), which left only the tribes in Judah’s kingdom to carry on Abraham’s heritage. The people of Judah’s kingdom called themselves and were known to other nations as Yehudim (Jews), a name still used today.”–jewishvirtuallibrary.
“In common speech, the word “Jew” is used to refer to all the physical and spiritual descendants of Jacob/Israel, as well as to the patriarchs Abraham and Isaac and their wives, and the word “Judaism” is to refer to their beliefs. Technically, this usage is inaccurate, just as it is technically inaccurate to use the word “Indian’ to refer to the original inhabitants of the Americas. However, this technically inaccurate usage is common both within the Jewish community and outside of it, and is therefore used throughout this site.”–jewishvirtuallibrary.
Prima-Qur’an comments:
The first point is that the word Judaism as a religion mandated by Allah is not found in the TNCH/Christian Old Testament. Judah-ism is a named after a particular tribe and what they believed and practiced. The key sacred text of Judaism is the Torah, which was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai.
As mentioned above, the name “Jew” was derived from Judah, who was one of Jacob’s 12 sons. So that is only 1/12 of the children of Israel. As mentioned, the name “Jew” became interchangeable for all the other 12 tribes.
So, basically, “Jew” can be used by anyone of the descendants of Jacob rather if they are actually from the Jewish tribe or not. For example, in Ethiopia, there are a group of children of Israel who claim to come from the tribe of Dan.
The article above also mentions that the Jews had fought Israel. That sounds strange given today’s context. However, it also shows you that, from their own sources to be against Israel is not anti-Semitic.
How could being against Israel be anti-Semetic when the Jews themselves fought Israel? Are we going to call Judah and Benjamin anti-Semites because they were against Israel (the 10 northern tribes)?
We also learn that Abraham and Isaac are called Jews, but as the article says: “Technically, this usage is inaccurate.”
Abraham and Isaac could not be Jews as the technically correct term refers only to those who are descendants from the tribe of Judah. Abraham and Isaac (peace be upon them both) came way before those tribes. Also, Abraham and Isaac could not follow a religion called Judaism.
Allah was with Abraham before Judaism or Christianity. Allah gives a very powerful rhetorical question for the Jews and Christians and truth seekers to reflect upon.
“O People of the Book! Why do you argue about Abraham, while the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed until long after him? Do you not use reason?” (Qur’an 3:65)
In other words, let’s think about this with reason and logic. It is obvious that Abraham was not a Christian as he was not a follower of Christ. He was not bound by the teachings of the Gospel. Christ came long after Abraham. Abraham could not be a Christian.
Abraham was not a Jew or a follower of Judaism because the term Jew comes from the tribe of Judah (which was long after Abraham) and Judaism has as its foundational source of guidance the Torah. He was not bound by the teachings of the Torah. Moses came long after Abraham.
You do not even have to be religious to acknowledge the above point. You could be an agnostic or an atheist and see that the point is logical. Especially when we recall definitionally what it means to be Muslim.
“Or do you say, “Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob, and the Tribes — they were Jews, or they were Christians”?’ Say: ‘Have you then greater knowledge, or Allah? And who does greater evil than he who conceals a testimony received from Allah? And Allah is not heedless of the things you do.” (Qur’an 2:140)
Now recall our definition of Islam & Muslim
The word Islam means: Surrender, Submission, Safety, Tranquility, Peace.
The word Muslim means: One who gains safety, peace and tranquility through surrender and submission of one’s own will to the will of Allah.
Is there anything in the sources that Jews today hold sacred that would indicate that Abraham (as) was someone who submitted his will to Allah?
Yes! He was willing to sacrifice his son, which Allah (swt) did not allow. It was a test of his willingness to surrender and submit his will to the will of Allah.
The message of Allah (swt) in the Qur’an is that the way of life before Allah (swt) is one. It is Islam.
Allah (swt) is not the tribal deity of Israel. This is full on refuted by the Creator himself, where He says, “All praise is for Allah—Lord of all worlds.” (Qur’an 1:2)
Allah (swt) never sanctioned or gave humanity a religion called Judaism. Then suddenly, some centuries later, He gave humanity another religion called Christianity. Allah (swt) has given us one way of life for all humanity from the get-go. The way of life (din) of Islam.
“Indeed, the religion (l-dina) in the sight of Allah is Islam(l-is-lamu). And those who were given the Scripture did not differ except after knowledge had come to them – out of jealous animosity between themselves. And whoever disbelieves in the verses of Allah , then indeed, Allah is swift in [taking] account.” (Qur’an 3:19)
Before there was a Christ or Moses, there was Allah. There was God Almighty having a relationship with humanity. Before there was a Gospel or a Torah, there was guidance.
Christian—named after a person (Christ)
Judaism—named after a tribe. (Judah)
Islam is not named after a person, place or thing.
A Muslim is both a noun (a descriptor) and a verb (connotates a way of being).
Islam is the universal right of all of humanity. We are not called Muhammedans. We are not called Qureshi’s. We are Muslims! Al hamdulillah!
“And strive for Allah with the striving due to Him. He has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion (l-dini) any difficulty. The creed (millata) of your father, Abraham. Allah named you “Muslims”(l-mus’limina) before and in this that the Messenger may be a witness over you and you may be witnesses over the people. So establish prayer and give zakah and hold fast to Allah. He is your protector; and excellent is the protector, and excellent is the helper.” (Qur’an 22:78)
May Allah (swt) open the hearts and may Allah (swt) guide us all to what is beloved to Him!
“That is because Allah He is the Truth (Al Haqq) -the Only True God of all that exists, Who has no partners or rival, the ultimate reality, and what they (those who associate) invoke besides Him, it is Batil (falsehood) And verily, Allah He is the Highest, The Most Great.” (Qur’an 22:62)
“No! We hurl the Truth against Falsehood, and it crushes it. Behold, falsehood does perish! Woe to you for the false things you ascribe.” (Qur’an 21:18)
﷽
The Bible claims to be a repository of divine revelation delivered through prophets. Yet within its own pages lie passages that raise a devastating question: How can anyone know, with objective certainty, whether a prophet speaks for God or for a deceiving spirit?
Two passages—1 Kings 22 (the lying spirit sent to deceive Ahab’s prophets) and 2 Kings 3 (the Moabite king’s child sacrifice to Chemosh that apparently succeeded)—demonstrate that the Bible provides no reliable, objective criterion for distinguishing true prophecy from false. Consequently, confidence in the God of the Bible and the reliability of the prophetic tradition is not rationally justified.
The Lying Spirit of 1 Kings 22
In 1 Kings 22, King Ahab of Israel seeks prophetic guidance before attacking Ramoth-gilead. Four hundred prophets unanimously predict victory. King Jehoshaphat of Judah asks for another prophet. Micaiah son of Imlah is summoned. After initial sarcasm, Micaiah delivers a startling revelation:
“I saw the Lord seated on his throne, with the whole host of heaven standing to his right and to his left. The Lord asked: Who will deceive Ahab, so that he will go up and fall on Ramoth-gilead? And one said this, another that, until this spirit came forth and stood before the Lord, saying, ‘I will deceive him.’ The Lord asked: How? He answered, ‘I will go forth and become a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets.’ The Lord replied: You shall succeed in deceiving him. Go forth and do this. So now, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours; the Lord himself has decreed evil against you.” (1 Kings 22:19–23)
This Is A Huge Problem.
This passage establishes several disturbing facts:
The Lord initiates deception. He does not merely permit a lying spirit to act; he asks for volunteers to deceive Ahab.
The lying spirit acts with divine authorization. The Lord commands, “Go forth and do this.”
The 400 prophets are sincere but deceived. Nothing in the text suggests they are frauds. They experience genuine prophetic ecstasy. They believe they speak for God. They are wrong.
The deception works. Ahab hears the prophesied victory, believes it, goes to battle, and dies.
The Objective Criterion Problem
If a prophet can be sincerely inspired by a lying spirit sent by the Lord, then the prophet’s subjective experience of inspiration is worthless as a test of truth. The 400 prophets felt exactly as true prophets feel. They spoke with confidence. They may even have performed signs (Zedekiah’s iron horns in verse 11). Yet they were deceived.
This means that any prophet at any time could be in the same position. There is no internal marker—no distinctive feeling, no special certainty, no accompanying miracle—that guarantees the message comes from the Lord rather than from a divinely commissioned lying spirit.
Possible Counter-Arguments and Responses
These objections are usually the response of those Christians who believe in Glossolalia, or speaking in tongues. Often other Christians will ask them how do they (Pentacostal, Evangelical) know that they do not have a lying spirit? These interesting internal Christian debates have helped in what follows.
Counter-argument 1: The lying spirit was sent as judgment against Ahab because he had already rejected the truth. The 400 prophets were not typical prophets; they were court prophets who told Ahab what he wanted to hear.
Prima Qur’an Response: This does not solve the objective criterion problem. Even if the 400 prophets were corrupt, the text says the lying spirit entered their mouths. The deception was real. More importantly, how would an observer know, in advance, which prophets are corrupt and which are true? Ahab had no objective way to know that Micaiah was the true prophet and the 400 were deceived until after the battle—when Ahab was dead. The test of fulfillment (Deuteronomy 18:21–22) works only in hindsight.
Counter-argument 2: Deuteronomy 13 provides a test: even if a prophet’s sign comes true, if he leads people to other gods, he is false. The 400 prophets did not do that.
Prima Qur’an Response: Deuteronomy 13 is a necessary test, but not a sufficient one. It catches only prophets who explicitly advocate idolatry. What about prophets who speak in the name of the Lord but are deceived? What about prophets who give military or political advice that leads to disaster? The lying spirit speaks in the name of the Lord. The 400 prophets say, “The Lord will give it into the power of the king” (verse 6). They do not advocate other gods. Yet they are false. Deuteronomy 13 does not identify them.
Counter-argument 3: The test of fulfillment eventually caught the false prophets. Ahab died. Their prophecy failed. That is the objective criterion.
Prima Qur’an Response: This is true but useless for anyone who must make a decision before the event. Ahab needed to know beforethe battle whether to attack. The 400 prophets gave him confident assurance. Micaiah gave him a warning. Ahab chose the majority. He had no objective way to decide which group was telling the truth. The test of fulfillment only works after the fact—after lives have been lost. A decision-making criterion that only works retroactively is not a criterion for decision-making at all.
The God of Chemosh in 2 Kings 3
In 2 Kings 3, the Moabite king rebels against Israel. Jehoram of Israel, Jehoshaphat of Judah, and the king of Edom form a coalition to attack Moab from the south. They run out of water. The prophet Elisha is consulted. He prophesies:
“Thus says the Lord: Dig ditches in this wadi. For thus says the Lord: You will see neither wind nor rain, yet the wadi will fill with water, and you will drink—you, your cattle, and your pack animals. And this is easy in the Lord’s sight; he will also deliver Moab into your power. You will destroy every fortified city and every choice city, cut down every good tree, stop up all the springs, and ruin every fertile field with stones.” (2 Kings 3:16–19)
The next morning, water comes. The Moabites see the water red in the sunlight, mistake it for blood, assume the allied kings have turned on each other, and rush out to plunder. The Israelites rise up and defeat them, pursuing them into Moab.
Then the text continues:
“When the king of Moab saw that the battle was going against him, he took with him seven hundred swordsmen to break through to the king of Edom, but they failed. Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him, and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And great wrath came upon Israel, so they withdrew from him and returned to their own land.” (2 Kings 3:26–27)
Another Massive Problem.
The plain reading of the text is devastating for any claim that the Lord alone is God or that other gods have no real power:
Elisha, a true prophet of the Lord, prophesied total victory. He said Moab would be delivered into Israel’s power. He described complete destruction: every city destroyed, every tree cut down, every spring stopped.
The Moabite king offers his son to Chemosh. This is not a private ritual; it is a public act of desperate propitiation, performed on the wall for both armies to see.
Something happens. The text does not explain the mechanism, but the causal sequence is unmistakable: sacrifice —> great wrath —> Israel withdraws.
Israel does not achieve the prophesied victory. They do not destroy Moab’s cities. They do not cut down its trees. They withdraw. They go home.
The most natural reading is that Chemosh, the Moabite god, was propitiated by the child sacrifice and responded by protecting Moab and driving Israel away.
Score card: Chemosh 1 Yahweh 0.
People May Ask: Does This Mean Chemosh Exists and Has Power?
If the biblical text reports that a sacrifice to Chemosh produced a military victory against an army that had the blessing of the Lord (through Elisha), then one of three conclusions follows:
Chemosh is a real god with real power. The Lord is not the only God, or at least not the only effective God. The Bible contains henotheism (many gods, but Israel must worship only one) rather than monotheism (only one God exists).
The Lord caused the wrath to punish Israel for some unstated sin. But the text does not say this. Elisha’s prophecy was unconditional: “The Lord will deliver Moab into your power.” If the Lord then caused Israel’s defeat, Elisha was a false prophet by Deuteronomy 18’s test. That creates an even larger problem.
The “wrath” was psychological—Israelite morale collapsed at the horror of child sacrifice. But the text does not say that either. It says wrath came upon Israel (qetseph gadol ‘al Yisra’el). The same language is used elsewhere for divine wrath. And psychological collapse is still an effect caused by the sacrifice—an effect that a non-existent god could not produce.
Possible Counter-Arguments and Responses
We have not seen good objectives or responses to the above. However, Christian apologetic is often predictable. Here are some of their possible counters as well as our response.
Counter-argument 1: The withdrawal was temporary. The text does not say Moab won the war. It only says Israel withdrew from that particular siege. Moab remained a vassal or was later subdued.
Priama Qur’an response: This is special pleading. The text presents the withdrawal as a direct consequence of the wrath. Elisha’s prophecy promised total destruction of Moab’s cities. That did not happen. The text does not record any later Moabite subjugation in this campaign. The plain reading is that the sacrifice worked and Israel failed to achieve its objective.
Counter-argument 2: The “great wrath” was from the Lord against Moab, not against Israel. So the wrath came upon Moab, causing the Israelites to withdraw because Moab was now protected by divine wrath.
Prima Qur’an response: The wrath comes after the sacrifice. If the wrath is against Moab, why does Israel withdraw? Israel would press the attack if Moab were under divine wrath. The withdrawal makes sense only if the wrath is against Israel—or if the wrath is Chemosh’s wrath against Israel. The simplest reading remains the most natural: the sacrifice propitiated Chemosh, and Chemosh acted.
Counter-argument 3: Chemosh may have real power, but that power is demonic and subordinate to the Lord.
Prima Qur’an Response: This does not solve the problem; it relocates it. If Chemosh is a demon acting under the Lord’s permission, then the Lord permitted a demon to defeat his own prophet’s prophecy. That means the Lord allows his own true prophets to be publicly humiliated and his people to be defeated by demonic powers. On what basis could anyone then trust a prophetic word? The Lord might have authorized a lying spirit to deceive the prophet (as in 1 Kings 22) or authorized a demon to defeat the army (as in 2 Kings 3). There is no objective way to know.
Counter-argument 4: The story is not about Chemosh’s power but about the horror of child sacrifice. The Israelites withdrew because they were morally repulsed, not because Chemosh did anything.
Prima Qur’an Response: The text does not say this. It says “great wrath came upon Israel.” That is theological language. The author could have written “they were horrified” but did not. Moreover, if the withdrawal was purely psychological, then the Moabite king’s strategy worked—not because Chemosh necesarilyh exists, but because human psychology responded to the horror. That still means the sacrifice was effective. And it means the Lord’s prophet (Elisha) did not foresee this psychological effect, despite having just predicted total victory. That makes Elisha a false prophet by the standard of Deuteronomy 18.
The Real Problem: The Collapse of Objective Criteria
The Bible provides several tests for prophets. Each fails when subjected to the evidence of these passages.
Test One: Fulfillment (Deuteronomy 18:21–22)
“If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord and the word does not come true, that word was not spoken by the Lord.”
The Problem: This test only works after the fact. Ahab needed to decide before the battle. Moreover, 2 Kings 3 shows that even a true prophet (Elisha) can prophesy victory that does not come to pass. Either Elisha was not a true prophet (contradicting the text’s presentation of him) or the test fails. And if a lying spirit can make false prophets succeed (1 Kings 22), then even fulfilled prophecy is not proof of divine origin. A demon could produce a fulfilled prediction to deceive.
Test Two: Theological Orthodoxy (Deuteronomy 13:1–5)
“If a prophet arises and gives you a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder comes true, but he says, ‘Let us follow other gods,’ you must not listen.”
The Problem: This test catches only prophets who explicitly advocate idolatry. The 400 prophets in 1 Kings 22 spoke in the name of the Lord. They did not advocate other gods. Yet they were deceived. A lying spirit can speak perfectly orthodox theology while leading people to destruction. Theological orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.
Think about it. The above text says that a there can be a false prophet who can give signs and wonders.
In fact, they have Jesus say as much here:
“For there shall arise false christs and false prophets and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (Matthew 24:24)
The only thing that makes that prophet false is that he is doing these things either by the power or in the name of another god. This is no objective criteria at all. It puts both on an even playing field.
Test Three: Track Record and Character
The Problem: Ahab knew that Micaiah had a track record of negative prophecies. He still chose to believe the 400. Track record is probabilistic, not certain. And 2 Kings 3 shows that a prophet with an impeccable track record (Elisha) can prophesy a victory that does not occur. If Elisha can be wrong (or overridden by Chemosh), then no prophet’s track record guarantees future accuracy.
Test Four: The Prophet’s Willingness to Suffer
The Problem: Micaiah was willing to die for his message. So were many false prophets in other religions. Martyrdom proves sincerity, not accuracy. A sincerely deceived prophet (like the 400) might also be willing to suffer if he believed his message was from God.
The Theological Consequences
The arguments above are sound, then the following conclusions follow:
1. There is no objective, reliable criterion for distinguishing true prophecy from false in real time.
A person standing at the gate of Samaria with Ahab has no rational basis to choose between Micaiah and the 400 prophets. Both groups speak in the name of the Lord. Both may be sincere. One group is deceived. There is no external test available before the event that resolves the question.
2. The Lord can and does authorize deception.
The text of 1 Kings 22 is unambiguous: the Lord commissions a lying spirit to deceive prophets. This means that any prophet at any time could be the vehicle of divine deception. The reader of the Bible has no guarantee that any given prophetic book was not produced under the influence of a divinely sent lying spirit.
3. Other gods (or the spiritual entities behind them) have real power.
The plain reading of 2 Kings 3 is that Chemosh responded to child sacrifice with military effect against an army blessed by the Lord’s prophet. Whether Chemosh is a god, a demon, or a literary device, the narrative presents a rival deity successfully opposing the Lord’s plan. This undercuts any strong monotheism that claims the Lord alone acts in history. It also supports henotheism which is presented throughout the Bible.
4. Biblical prophecy is not a reliable basis for knowledge about God.
If prophecy can be deceived by divine design, and if rival deities can thwart prophetic predictions, then the prophetic corpus of the Bible cannot be trusted as a secure foundation for theology. The claims of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the minor prophets rest on the same prophetic mechanism that produced the 400 deceived prophets of 1 Kings 22. There is no external verification available to the modern reader that distinguishes true biblical prophets from false ones.
Possible Responses from Believing Scholarship.
Response 1: The Canonical Context
Believing scholars argue that the Bible as a whole provides its own hermeneutic. The lying spirit episode is a judgment on Ahab’s hardness of heart. The Chemosh episode shows the horror of child sacrifice, not Chemosh’s power. When read in the full canon—from Genesis to Revelation—these episodes do not undermine trust but reinforce the sovereignty of the Lord who uses even deception and foreign gods for his purposes.
Prima Qur’an response: This response assumes what it needs to prove—that the canon as a whole is trustworthy. The question at issue is whether the prophetic mechanism itself is reliable. Citing other biblical passages does not solve the problem because those passages come through the same unreliable prophetic mechanism. This is circular reasoning.
Response 2: Divine Accommodation
Some theologians argue that the Bible accommodates itself to ancient Near Eastern ways of thinking. The authors of 1 Kings and 2 Kings believed that other gods existed and that the Lord could use lying spirits.
Prima Qur’an Response: If the Bible accommodates false beliefs (that other gods exist, that the Lord sends lying spirits), then on what basis can any part of the Bible be trusted as accurate? Accommodationism is a slippery slope. If the Bible is wrong about the existence of Chemosh and the mechanism of divine deception, it could be wrong about anything. The reader is left with no objective criterion for deciding which parts are accommodation and which are truth.
Response 3: Existential Trust
Some theologians argue that faith does not rest on objective criteria. Faith is a leap. The absence of certainty is the condition for authentic trust. The objective uncertainty of prophecy is not a bug but a feature.
Prima Qur’an Response: This is an honest attempt at a response but it concedes the argument. If faith requires a leap without objective evidence, then the claim that “the Bible is reliable” is not a rational conclusion but a personal commitment. The skeptic who demands objective grounds for belief is not refuted; they are simply told that faith does not provide what they seek. That is a defensible position on the basis of faith alone, but it abandons any claim to rational demonstration.
Conclusion
The Bible itself provides no objective, reliable criterion for distinguishing true prophecy from false. The lying spirit of 1 Kings 22 demonstrates that sincere prophets speaking in the name of the Lord can be deceived by divine commission. The God of Chemosh in 2 Kings 3 demonstrates that rival deities (or the spiritual powers behind them) can successfully oppose armies blessed by the Lord’s true prophets.
These passages strike at the heart of biblical authority. If the prophetic mechanism is unreliable, then the prophetic books of the Bible are unreliable. If the Bible cannot provide a rational basis for trusting its own prophets, then the God of the Bible cannot be known with certainty through the Bible.
This does not prove that God does not exist. It proves something narrower but still devastating: the Bible does not give its readers a reliable, objective method for knowing that its prophets speak truth rather than a lying spirit. For anyone who demands rational grounds for belief, this is sufficient reason to withhold trust.
May Allah guide the sincere among the Jews and the Christians so that they do not enter the hellfire.
“O People of the Book! Now Our Messenger has come to you, revealing much of what you have hidden of the book and disregarding much. There certainly has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book. through which Allah guides those who seek His pleasure to the ways of peace, brings them out of darkness and into light by His Will, and guides them to the Straight Path. (Qur’an 5:15-16)
﷽
Henotheism is the worship of a single, supreme deity while acknowledging or accepting the existence of other, lesser gods.
Monotheism is the belief in the existence of only one god, or the oneness of God, distinguishing it from polytheism (many gods) and atheism.
The cypher of The Tetragrammaton revealed.
Tetra =4.
Gramma= letter.
Aton (Aten).
The Bible claims that their god used to be called ‘Baal’.
“And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal.’ (Hosea 2:16)
Ba’al (בעל) is the most commonly used in modern Hebrew for husband.
“Eluzai, Jerimoth, Bealiah, Shemariah and Shephatiah the Haruphite…” (1 Chronicles 12:5)
Bealiah which means Jehovah is Baal.
However, because the name Baal had become so associated with the Canaanite deity, there becomes a prohibition that commands Israel to stop using that title for Him altogether . This also proves that Israelites were using the same name for their God prior to this prohibition.
Barnes’ notes on the Bible has the following:
“God says, “so wholly do I hate the name of idols, that on account of the likeness of the word Baal, “my Lord,” I will not be so called even in a right meaning, lest, while she utter the one, she should think on the other, and calling Me her Husband, think on the idol.”
Think of it like this. Maybe there was a woman married to a man named Thomas. This woman received a divorce from Thomas. Now this woman is married to you and your name happens to also be Thomas. So, during intimacy, it is possible that you would not want her to call out your name as it could be awkward.
In the Qur’an Allah (swt) has never once been identified with Baal.
In fact, the two are contrasted and never conflated.
“When he said to his people, “Will you not fear Allah ?”Will you call upon Baal and forsake the Best of Creators.” (Qur’an 37:124-125)
The Bible portrays Jesus as a rebelious son who went away from Elyon (God) and sacrificed to Baals and burned incense to images.
Hosea 11:1-2 in context says:
“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more they were called, the more they went away from me.They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.” (Hosea 11:1-2)
The Qur’an presents clear monotheism.
“Allah! There is no god except Him, the Ever-Living, All-Sustaining.” (Qur’an 2:255)
Say, He Allah is Absolute. That which is independent of all but which all things are dependent upon. He does not bring for like kind nor was he from like kind And there is no equivalent to His being Absolute. (Qur’an 112:1-4)
This powerful surah is absolutely uncompromising.
We need to explain the reasons why we translate the text as we do.
Say, He Allah is Absolute.
We make a crucial distinction that most English translations obscure. Wāḥid appears throughout the Qur’an (e.g., 2:163, 5:73, 14:48) and means “one” in a numerical, countable sense. Aḥad, by contrast, appears in this surah and carries a different weight.
Wāḥid = one as opposed to two or more (quantitative oneness)
Aḥad = absolute, unique, singular without composition or peer (qualitative oneness)
Our translation of Aḥad as “Absolute” is therefore more precisethan “One,” which conflates Aḥad with Wāḥid. The standard “One and Only” tries to bridge this but still leans on number. “Absolute” correctly captures the mode of oneness rather than the count.
On Al-Ṣamad. That which is independent of all but which all things are dependent upon.
Standard translations (“Eternal,” “Absolute,” “Self-Sufficient,” “The Uncaused Cause”) each capture one facet. Our full clause—“That which is independent of all but which all things are dependent upon”—is arguably the most complete English rendering possible. It combines:
Negative theology (not dependent on anything)
Positive theology (all depend on Him)
Causal primacy (uncaused cause)
Implication: This is not a liability but an advantage. It sacrifices brevity (the Arabic Ṣamad is one word) but gains clarity. For a translation intended for study rather than liturgical memorization, this is defensible.
Why we do not render the text as “begets not nor is begotten”. He does not bring for like kind nor was he from like kind.
If Allah came from something else (was begotten): He would share a genus with that something else (both would be “things that originated from a prior cause”).
If something like Him came from Allah (begets): That something would share a genus with Allah (both would be “beings that produce likenesses”).
Either scenario destroys absoluteness. A truly absolute being has no genus. Genus implies shared properties, limitations, and comparability. An absolute being is sui generis in the literal sense: of its own kind.
Therefore, “does not bring for like kind nor was he from like kind” is theologically superior to “begets not nor is begotten” because:
It explicitly targets category membership, not biological process.
It avoids the English word “beget,” which confuses modern readers.
It closes the door on Neoplatonic emanation (where lower realities come from higher ones “like kind” in a chain of being) as well as Christian Trinitarian generation.
Implication: Our translation is a more universal negation of ontological continuity between Allah and creation than the conventional one. It addresses Christianity, Neoplatonism, certain Hindu cosmologies (e.g., prakriti giving birth to purusha-like realities), and any emanationist or filial model.
And there is no equivalent to His being Absolute.
Absoluteness is a maximal property. If two things were both absolute, each would limit the other’s absoluteness (each would fail to be absolute relative to the other). Absoluteness entails uniqueness necessarily, not accidentally.
Our final line—“no equivalent to his being absolute”—thus correctly implies that the property itself cannot be instantiated in any other subject. The property is self-uniquifying.
It is clear that Islam is monotheistic.
This is unlike the bible where someone could become like the God (Elyon) or like the deities in his assembly.
“And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.(Genesis 3:22-23)
“And the ETERNAL God said, “Now that humankind has become likeany of us, knowing good and bad, what if one should stretch out a hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!” (Genesis 3:22) –Source: (https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.3.22)
It is interesting that the Jews at Sefaria have translated the text as the Eternal God was worried that Adam may eat from a tree that would give him the property of living forever. This would make him like ‘any of us’.
Paul being the henotheist that he is says:
“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many; yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.” (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)
“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish: in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.” (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)
Paul concedes that there’s a “god of this world” separate from his god. He acknowledges that there are many gods. He just simply says that for him and his sect, they only worship one god, whom they call, ‘The Father’.
The TNCH or what the Christians call the Old Testament is replete with henotheistic passages. The Children of Israel went through different phases worshipping different gods at different times and even had a massive civil war over the matter.
You will notice when studying that the names of several deities names pop up time and again. These names are often conflated with the various other deities that the Children of Israel worshipped.
Perhaps the most damning evidence is as follows:
“When the Most High gave the nations thier inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel. For the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his alloted inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 32:8-9)
“Masoretic Text; Dead Sea Scrolls (see also Septuagint)sons of God.”
How does the New Revised Standard Version render the reading?
“When the Most High gave the nations thier inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the gods; For the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his alloted inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 32:8-9)
How did the transition from “bene Elohim” (sons of God) to “bene Yisrael” (sons of Israel) occur in Deuteronomy 32:8? The timing remains unknown. Whether this change took place during the intertestamental period or at the time of the text’s standardization around 100 AD — we simply do not know when it happened. But this much is certain: a scribe altered the text. Someone deliberately replaced “sons of God” with “sons of Israel.” The exact date of this change is unknown, but the fact that it occurred is beyond dispute. We know this because the Masoretic Text contains the altered reading, while the Dead Sea Scrolls preserve the original. And the Dead Sea Scrolls predate the Masoretic text by a full millennium. Israel is not even in existence when the nations are divided!
A scribe removed the three letters you see in green and added the two letters you see in red.
What does this mean?
Elyon was to be the god of Jacob and his people. The sons of Elyon. Or the other gods were to be for the other nations. In other words the main God (Elyon) divided Earth up among regional deities.
We see this in the following text:
“Will you not possess whatever Chemosh your god gives you to possess? So whatever the Lord our God takes possession of before us, we will possess.” (Judges 11:24)
It mentions that Chemosh is the god of the Ammonites, just as Israel has their own god.
“You shall have no other gods before/beside me.” (Exodus 20:3)
“You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,” (Exodus 20:5)
“Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” (Exodus 34:14)
“You shall have no other gods before/beside me.” (Deuteronomy 5:7)
These text are not a denial of other gods or deities. In fact, the above text describe this god as a jealous god.
This understanding of jealousy is a complex, often unpleasant emotion stemming from fear, insecurity, or a perceived threat to a valued relationship or status. It arises when someone feels threatened by a rival.
The way the Bible portrays this jealousy its as if the god of the children of Israel is in a genus. Even though this god acknowledges that he is superior there is a sort of pathological jealousy at play here.
“God(Elyon) stands in the congregation of the mighty; he judges among the gods.” (Pslam 82:1)
This verse indicates a superior deity presiding over lesser beings. A god among gods.
The Qur’an never describes Allah as a god among gods. Rather it negates any other deity except him.
Insh’Allah we will come back to (Pslam 82:1)
There is an interesting connection between Moloch and the god that the Children of Israel worshipped.
“Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.” (Genesis 14:18-20)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
Melchizedek is said to be a priest of God Most High, (Elyon). In other words the chief god.
Melchizedek needs to clarify who the (Elyon) Most High is. He is the Creator of heaven and earth.
“The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek'” (Psalm 110:4)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
Notice that this does not identify or equate the priest as Melchizedek but that he would be priest in his order.
“Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.” (Hebrews 7:3)
Whoever wrote the book of Hebrews must have had some access to extra Biblical data about Melchizedek that we do not know about.
What is interesting is the word translated as Melchizedek: Righteous King can easily be translated as Righteous Moloch.
We also have the following interesting text.
“Adonizedek, the king of Jerusalem, heard that Joshua had captured and totally destroyed Ai and had killed its king, just as he had done to Jericho and its king. He also heard that the people of Gibeon had made peace with the Israelites and were living among them. The people of Jerusalem were greatly alarmed at this because Gibeon was as large as any of the cities that had a king; it was larger than Ai, and its men were good fighters. So Adonizedek sent the following message to King Hoham of Hebron, King Piram of Jarmuth, King Japhia of Lachish, and to King Debir of Eglon. (Joshua 10:1-3)
Adonizedek is an interesting name. It means Adon is Zedek. Adon (Aton/Aten) is Righteous.
However, it can also mean that Adon is Zedek. My Lord is Zedek.
(Moloch) is a god satiated by human suffering. In particular the sacrifice of innocent children.
He is a god of holocaust. However, anyone who is a Christian will understand a deity who is satiated through the suffering of children, in particular one of his own.
“A divinity worshipped by the idolatrousIsraelites. The Hebrew pointing Molech does not represent the original pronunciation of the name, any more than the Greek vocalization Moloch found in the LXX and in the Acts (vii, 43). The primitive title of this god was very probably Melech, “king”, the consonants of which came to be combined through derision with the vowels of the word Bosheth, “shame”. As the word Moloch (A.V. Molech) means king, it is difficult in several places of the Old Testament to determine whether it should be considered as the proper name of a deity or as a simple appellative. The passages of the original text in which the name stands probably for that of a god are Lev., xviii, 21; xx, 2-5; III (A. V. I) Kings, xi, 7; IV (II) Kings, xxiii, 10; Isaiah 30:33; 57:9; Jeremiah 32:35. The chief feature of Moloch’s worship among the Jews seems to have been the sacrifice of children, and the usual expression for describing that sacrifice was “to pass through the fire”, a rite carried out after the victims had been put to death. The special centre of such atrocities was just outside of Jerusalem, at a place called Tophet (probably “place of abomination”), in the valley of Geennom. According to III (I) Kings, xi, 7, Solomon erected “a temple” for Moloch “on the hill over against Jerusalem”, and on this account he is at times considered as the monarch who introduced the impious cult into Israel. After the disruption, traces of Moloch worship appear in both Juda and Israel. The custom of causing one’s children to pass through the fire seems to have been general in the Northern Kingdom [IV (II) Kings, xvii, 17; Ezech. xxiii, 37], and it gradually grew in the Southern, encouraged by the royal example of Achaz (2 Kings 16:3) and Manasses [IV (II) Kings, xvi, 6] till it became prevalent in the time of the prophet Jeremias (Jerem. xxxii, 35), when King Josias suppressed the worship of Moloch and defiled Tophet [IV (II) Kings, xxiii, 13 (10)]. It is not improbable that this worship was revived under Joakim and continued until the Babylonian Captivity.”
“Aaron answered them, “Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me.” So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, “These are your gods,[b] Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, “Tomorrow there will be a festival to the Lord.” So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry. Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, ‘These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.’” (Exodus 32:2-8)
Prima Qur’an comments:
Prophet Aaron is claimed to have made an idol in the shape of a calf.
The people also said: These are your gods (plural) that brought you (Israel) out of Egypt.
The god that is speaking to moses reaffirms the above two points. Especially: “These are your gods,Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.”
Notice the translation is not sure if the word should be gods or god. However, it is clarified in what was said to Moses by the god that spoke to him. The people were claiming gods (plural) brought them out of Egypt.
Is it not very odd that it is claimed a prophet and servant of the One True God who witnessed miracles would so quickly go and do something like this in the absence of his brother (Moses)?
No one seems to the object to the idea that gods (not god) brought them out of Egypt.
During the civil war of Israel the following happened.
“After seeking advice, the king made two golden calves. He said to the people, “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” One he set up in Bethel, and the other in Dan. And this thing became a sin; the people came to worship the one at Bethel and went as far as Dan to worship the other.” (1 Kings 12:28-30)
Jewish Rabbis have debates about what type of worship of Molech is acceptable and what is not.
The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 64a):
“HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, OR THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO PENALTY, UNLESS HE DOES BOTH.”
Observation: The rabbis are parsing the precise act that constitutes a capital offense. Both elements are required: (1) delivering to Molech’s priests, and (2) causing the child to pass through fire.
The Gemara Discussion:
“R. Abin said: Our Mishnah is in accordance with the view that Molech worship is not idolatry. For it has been taught, whether to Molech or to any other idol he is liable. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: If to Molech, he is liable; if to another idol, he is not.”
This is striking. Some rabbis consider Molech worship not to be idolatry — or at least different in kind from other idol worship. Why?
“R. Hanina b. Antigonus said: Why did the Torah employ the word Molech? To teach that the same law applies to whatever they proclaimed as their king, even a pebble or a splinter.”
Molech is not necessarily a specific deity — it is any deity to whom one transfers sovereignty (“king”) over oneself. The rabbis are working hard to define the boundary.
The Critical Question the Rabbis Are Avoiding
If a Jew offered his child as a burnt offering to Yahweh, would that be permitted?
The rabbis do not address this directly. But their silence is telling.
Jephthah in Rabbinic Literature:
The Talmud (Ta’anit 4a) and later rabbinic commentary do address Jephthah — and they are highly critical of him. The general rabbinic view is that Jephthah should have sought to annul his vow through a sage, and that his failure to do so resulted in tragedy. Some rabbis even say he was punished for his foolishness (losing parts of his body, dying unnaturally).
However — and this is crucial — the rabbis never say that what Jephthah did was inherently impossible or categorically forbidden. They criticize his failure to seek annulment, not the act of human sacrifice itself. They also note that his daughter (like Isaac) was willing.
The Nakdimon Connection
One of the most revealing texts appears in the Babylonian Talmud (Nedarim 37a) and is cited in the Soncino commentary on Sanhedrin 64a. Rabbi Dr. Freedman, the translator, notes:
“The offering of children to Molech was not regarded as ordinary idolatry, but as a distinct offence. One reason is that it involved the destruction of one’s seed — an act of cruelty which even pagans normally did not practice. Another is that it was sometimes done in the name of the Lord, as in the case of Jephthah.”
Read that again: “It was sometimes done in the name of the Lord, as in the case of Jephthah.”
The rabbis knew that child sacrifice had been performed in Israel in the name of Yahweh. They were not condemning the practice universally — they were trying to regulate it, to distinguish between “legitimate” (Yahwistic) and “illegitimate” (pagan) contexts.
The god of Israel (Yahweh) is apparently satiated by human suffering. In particular the sacrifice of innocent children.
In (2 Samuel 21), David is king over Judah. A famine oppresses the land; King David learns that LORD God is punishing Israel for King Saul’s sin (Saul attacked the Gibeonites in violation of Joshua’s treaty (Joshua 9:15). Therefore, in order to relieve the famine, David must appease the Gibeonites. On negotiation, the Gibeonites demand to be given seven descendants of Saul to be hanged “unto the LORD.” David picks two of Saul’s sons and five of Saul’s grandsons. Coincidentally, the five grandsons are the children of Michal, the woman David had wanted to marry (see 1 Samuel 18:25). David gives these Israelites to the Gibeonites so the Gibeonites can hang them.
“Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David inquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites. And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them: and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah.) Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the LORD? And the Gibeonites said unto him, We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel. And he said, What ye shall say, that will I do for you. And they answered the king, The man that consumed us, and that devised against us that we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel, Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, whom the LORD did choose. And the king said, I will give them. But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of the LORD’s oath that was between them, between David and Jonathan the son of Saul. But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of barley harvest.” Source: (2 Samuel 21:1-11)
Prima Qur’an Comments: The God (Elyon) did not explicitly request the hangings. But The God (Elyon) imposed an insufferable famine on the Israelites, The God (Elyon) named the Gibeonites as the people to be appeased, and the Gibeonites named the penalty. When it was done, The God (Elyon) apparently found the human sacrifice to be satisfactory: the chapter continues with accounts of battles, and the famine is not mentioned further. This sequence — an angry god causes a natural disaster, innocent life is slain to appease the god’s anger, and the hardship ceases — this is the same sequence of events found in the human sacrifice rites of other primitive religions.
The God (Elyon) of the Bible did not stop Jephthah from burning his small daughter if the God (Elyon)gave him victory over his enemies.
“Then the Spirit of the Lord came on Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands. He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon. When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.” “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.” “You may go,” He said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin. (Judges 11:29-39)
Prima Qur’an Comments: Now there is major major copium from Christians and Jews regarding this.
Copium # 1. They try and put a spin that the sacrifice is to dedicate his daughter to the Lord as a virgin (meaning temple service) and Jephthah bemoaned that due this he would never have any descendants. Response: and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering & After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed The emphasis on her being a virgin is so she would be an unblemished sacrificed.
Copium #2. The God (Elyon) commands against sacrificing Children in the Bible.
Response. No, no he doesn’t!
“You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 18:21)
“I will also set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given some of his offspring to Molech, so as to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name.” (Leviticus 20:3)
“You shall not behave thus toward the Lord your God, for every abominable act which the Lord hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.” (Deuteronomy 12:31)
As well as the related practice of passing the children through the fire and not consuming them by the fire:
“There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer.” (Deuteronomy 18:10)
“You shall also say to the sons of Israel: ‘Any man from the sons of Israel or from the aliens sojourning in Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones.” (Leviticus 20:2)
Offering your children up as a burnt offering is not against the Torah teachings of the Jews. Nor was it something unacceptable to God. The offence in question was offering them up to Molech and NOT THE GOD (ELYON) OF ISRAEL!
“For I the Lord your God am a jealous God.” (Daniel 5:9)
This god that they worshipped is not against sacrifice or burnt offerings as we have already shown above. Their god
There is no issue with offering up children as a holocaust (burnt offering) to their god. The issue is doing it to false gods.
“They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molek, though I never commanded—nor did it enter my mind—that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.” (Jeremiah 32:35)
Because the Elyon, The High God of the Bible is jealous.
Did we forget?
“After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” (Genesis 22:1-2)
The Angel of the Lord as Satan and one of the gods among gods in the Bible.
In the Hebrew Bible, ha-satan (הַשָּׂטָן) is not a proper name but a title: “the Adversary” or “the Accuser” . This figure appears in the divine council — the assembly of elohim (divine beings) over which Elyon presides as supreme. Ha-Satan is not a rival god or a fallen angel — he is a subordinate being within Elyon’s administration. As one scholar puts it: “The Satan is a member of the divine council, serving as a sort of prosecutor or royal spy” (Peggy L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven).
“I was further shown Joshua, the high priest, standing before the angel of GOD, and the Accuser (Satan) standing at his right to accuse him. But [the angel of] GOD said to the Accuser (Satan), “GOD rebukes you, O Accuser; GOD who has chosen Jerusalem rebukes you! For this is a brand plucked from the fire.”
Here you have Ha-Satan standing at the right hand of the Angel of the LORD to accuse Joshua the high priest. Elyon (the Most High God) rebukes Ha-Satan.
“One day the divine beings presented themselves before GOD. The Adversary came along with them to present himself before GOD. GOD said to the Adversary, “Where have you been?” The Adversary answered GOD, “I have been roaming all over the earth.” GOD said to the Adversary, “Have you noticed My servant Job? There is no one like him on earth, a blameless and upright man who fears God and shuns evil. He still keeps his integrity; so you have incited Me against him to destroy him for no good reason. The Adversary answered GOD, “Skin for skin—all that the man has he will give up for his life. But lay a hand on his bones and his flesh, and he will surely blaspheme You to Your face.” So GOD said to the Adversary, “See, he is in your power; only spare his life.”The Adversary departed from GOD’s presence and inflicted a severe inflammation on Job from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.”
Here you have Ha-Satan appearing among the bene ha-elohim (sons of God) and acting as a prosecuting attorney, testing Job’s righteousness with Elyon’s permission. He is not an enemy of Elyon but a member of His court.
The Angel of the LORD as a Satan in Numbers 22
This is a fascinating and often overlooked passage.
The Narrative: Balaam is hired by Balak of Moab to curse Israel. He consults God (Elyon) who tells him not to go. Balak sends more prestigious messengers; Balaam asks again; God (Elyon)permits him to go but with conditions. On the way:
“But God’s anger was kindled because he went, and the Angel of the LORD stationed himself in the road as an adversary (satan) against him.” (Numbers 22:22)
Analysis:
The Hebrew word used for “adversary” is precisely לְשָׂטָן (l’satan) — “as a satan.”
The Angel of the LORD — generally understood as a manifestation of God (Elyon) Himself (since the Angel speaks as God and is worshipped as God elsewhere) — functions as an obstructor or adversary to Balaam.
This same Angel later permits Balaam to continue (Numbers 22:35).
What this means: God (Elyon)through His Angel) acts as both a guide and an adversary. The same being who permits Balaam to go also stands in his way as a satan. This shows that the role of “adversary” is not a separate being but a function that even God(Elyon) can perform.
As one commentary notes: “The Angel of the LORD acts as Balaam’s ‘adversary’ (satan)… This is the only place in the Old Testament where the Angel of the LORD is explicitly called a satan” (Gordon Wenham, Numbers).
“O Lord, you have deceived me, and I was deceived; you are stronger than I, and you have prevailed.” (Jeremiah 20:7)
Henotheism is the worship of one primary deity while accepting the existence of other gods within a pantheon. It is sort of a pantheon. As a middle ground between polytheism and monotheism, it allows followers to focus devotion on a single “king god”—such as Zeus, Odin, or in some forms of Hinduism—while recognizing other divine beings.
This is why we can have text like the following:
Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” (2 Samuel 24:1)
“Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.” (1 Chronicles 21:1)
This would seem to be a contradiction but when we realize that they are basically one and the same it makes sense from a henotheistic worldview.
The biblical divine council — with its bene ha-elohim, ha-satan as prosecutor, and the Angel of the LORD as a distinct yet divine figure — is not compatible with Islamic tawhid (radical monotheism). Whether the figure in question is called Baal, Molech, Yahweh, or Ha-Satan, the Qur’an would reject any theology that places other divine beings beside Allah.
Qur’an Surah 112 has been shown to absolutely demolish this framework.
Yahweh seems to be a sort of tribal war deity or war angel as presented in the TNCH. The part of the Bible the Christians call: ‘The Old Testament.’
The term Tzva’ot refers to armies or hosts. (Hebrew: Yahweh Tzva’ot) is a divine title in the Bible appearing over 200 times, primarily in the Old Testament, designating Yahweh as the god over all heavenly and earthly armies.
“Yahweh of Armies is with us. The God of Jacob is our refuge. “ (Pslam 46:7)
“Each year Elkanah would travel to Shiloh to worship and sacrifice to the LORD of Heaven’s Armies at the Tabernacle. The priests of the LORD at that time were the two sons of Eli—Hophni and Phinehas.” (1 Samuel 1:3)
“The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.” (Exodus 15:3)
You even have henotheistic views put in the mouth of the One True God’s Prophets!
“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God (τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεόν), and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (John 17:3)
Here he could have simply said “only God.” By adding “true” (ἀληθινός), he leaves open the possibility that other beings exist who could be called “gods” (elohim) — but they are not the true God.
The Jehovah’s Witness have translated John 1:1 as:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1)
“Who among the gods is like you, Lord?” (Exodus 15:11)
“For the Lord is the great God, the great King above all gods.” (Pslam 95:3)
“All who worship images are put to shame, those who boast in idols—Worship him, all you gods!” (Psalm 97:7)
“For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.” (Deuteronomy 10:17)
This is far from monotheism. This is far from what is presented in the Qur’an.
Is it little wonder we those socities that succumb to these beliefs ridden with demonic forces? Even the innocent among them they have no idea what they are even worshipping! May Allah Guide these people to the truth before the burn in hellfire.
“Bilin ki dünya hayatı, bir oyun, bir eğlence, bir gösteriş, aranızda bir övünme, mal ve evlâtta bir çokluk yarışından ibarettir. Tıpkı bir yağmur gibi ki bitirdikleri çiftçileri imrendirir, sonra kurumaya yüz tutar, bir de bakarsın ki sararmıştır, ardından da çerçöp haline gelmiştir. Âhirette ise ya çetin bir azap yahut Allah’ın bağışlaması ve hoşnutluğu vardır. Dünya hayatı sadece aldatıcı bir yararlanmadan başka bir şey değildir.” (Hadîd, 57/20) — Kaynak: Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı Meali.
“Ey insanlar! Şüphesiz sizi bir erkek ile bir dişiden yarattık, tanışasınız diye sizi kavim ve kabilelere ayırdık, Allah katında en değerli olanınız O’na itaatsizlikten en fazla sakınanınızdır. Allah her şeyi hakkıyla ilmektedir, her şeyden haberdardır.” (Hucurât,49/13) — Kaynak: Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı Meali.
﷽
Bu makaleye “Peygamber’in (sav) sözde soyundan gelenler” başlığını verdik; zira Peygamber’in (sav) doğrudan devam eden bir nesep hattı yoktur. Allah’ın Resûlü’nün (sav) erkek çocukları—Kāsım, Abdullah ve İbrahim (Allah onları rahmetiyle kuşatsın)—henüz küçük yaşta vefat ettikleri için, onun doğrudan baba tarafından gelen soy çizgisi (nesep) sona ermiştir.
İslâm geleneğinde nesep, esas itibarıyla baba üzerinden takip edilir.
Nesep Erkekler Üzerinden Devam Eder: İslâm geleneğinde nesep, baba üzerinden belirlenir. Peygamber’in (sav) bütün erkek çocukları küçük yaşta vefat ettiğinden, onun doğrudan biyolojik soy hattı sona ermiştir.
Soy Kızları Üzerinden Devam Eder: Kızlarının çocukları olan Hasan ve Hüseyin gibi isimler, doğru şekilde kendi babalarına, yani Ali b. Ebû Tâlib’e nispet edilir. Onlar Peygamber’in (sav) ailesindendir (Ehl-i Beyt); ancak onun doğrudan nesebinden değildir.
Yahudi kimliğinin belirlenmesinde anne soyu esas alınır (rabbanî hukukta). Bu, soyun anne üzerinden takip edildiği Rabbanî Yahudiliğin yerleşik uygulamasıdır.
İslâm Hukuku ile Karşılaştırma
İslâm’da:
Nesep baba üzerinden takip edilir. Annenin kimliği her zaman bilinir; ancak hukukî nesep babaya bağlanır.
Farkın Özeti
Nesep, doğrudan baba tarafından gelen kan bağı yahut soydur. Babalar üzerinden takip edilen resmî ve hukukî soy çizgisidir.
Torun/soyundan gelen kişi ise belirli bir atadan türeyen kimsedir. Bu, hem baba hem de anne hattı üzerinden olabilir. Dolayısıyla “sözde soyundan gelen” dediğimizde, bunun göz önünde bulundurulması yerinde olacaktır.
Buradaki kritik ayrım şudur: Klasik İslâm hukukunda, bir kimse Peygamber’in (sav) kızları aracılığıyla—Hasan ve Hüseyin örneğinde olduğu gibi—onun soyundan gelen biri sayılabilse de, nesep baba üzerinden takip edildiği için onun doğrudan nesebinin bir parçası kabul edilmez. Aksine, bu kişiler kendi babalarının soyuna, yani Ali b. Ebû Tâlib’in nesebine nispet edilirler.
Nesebin Korunması
İslâm hukukunda açık ve belirli bir nesep, hukukun temel amaçlarından biri olarak kabul edilir (makāsıdü’ş-şerîa kapsamında). Kur’an, kişilerin babaları üzerinden tanımlanmasına güçlü bir vurgu yapar.
Bu husus, Müslüman erkeklerin birden fazla eşle evlenebilmesine karşılık Müslüman kadınların birden fazla kocaya sahip olamamasının niçinlerinden biri olarak ileri sürülen temel argümanlardan biridir.
“Onları babalarına nisbet ederek çağırın. Allah yanında en doğrusu budur.” (Ahzâb, 33/5) — Kaynak: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Meali.
Ahzâb sûresinin 33/5. âyeti çerçevesinde, bir kişi babasına nispet edilerek anılır. Peygamber’in biyolojik erkek evladı bulunmadığından, bu özel ve hukukî anlamda “Muhammed’in oğlu” diye adlandırılabilecek hiç kimse yoktur.
“(Resûlüm!) Kuşkusuz biz sana Kevser’i verdik. Şimdi sen Rabbine kulluk et ve kurban kes. Asıl soyu kesik olan, şüphesiz sana hınç besleyendir.” (Kevser, 108/1-3) — Kaynak: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Meali.
Kur’an’dan delil: Makale, Kevser sûresini ve bu sûrenin klasik tefsirini, yani İbn Kesîr tefsirini, Peygamber’in çağdaşlarının onu, hayatta kalan erkek evladı bulunmadığı için “ebter” diye niteleyerek alaya aldıklarını göstermek üzere kullanmaktadır. Allah’ın cevabı, gerçekte soyu kesik olanın ona hınç besleyen kimse olduğunu bildirmek şeklinde gelmiştir. Allah’ın cevabı, mübarek Peygamber’in vârislerinin bulunduğu yönünde onların iddiasını reddetmek biçiminde olmamıştır.
İbn Kesîr Tefsiri’nden: Kevser sûresinin 1-3. âyetlerinin nüzul sebebi
Peygamber’in düşmanı, asıl soyu kesik olandır. Allah Teâlâ şöyle buyurur: “Asıl soyu gelmeyecek olan, sana karşı nefret duyandır.” (Kevser, 108/3) — Kaynak: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Meali. Bunun anlamı şudur: Ey Muhammed! Sana kin besleyen, senin getirdiğin hidayete, apaçık hakikate, kesin delile ve açık nura düşmanlık eden kimse; gerçekte en çok itibarsızlaşan, en aşağı düşen ve adı sanı anılmayacak olan kişidir.
İbn Abbas, Mücâhid, Saîd b. Cübeyr ve Katâde şöyle demiştir: “Bu âyet, Âs b. Vâil hakkında nazil olmuştur. Allah Resûlü onun yanında anıldığında o, ‘Bırakın onu; çünkü o, nesli devam etmeyen bir adamdır. Öldüğünde artık hatırlanmayacaktır’ derdi. Bunun üzerine Allah bu sûreyi indirdi.”
Şemir b. Atıyye şöyle demiştir: “Bu sûre, Ukbe b. Ebû Muayt hakkında nazil oldu.” İbn Abbas ile İkrime de şöyle demiştir: “Bu sûre, Ka‘b b. Eşref ve Kureyş müşriklerinden bir grup hakkında nazil oldu.” Bezzâr’ın İbn Abbas’tan rivayet ettiğine göre, Ka‘b b. Eşref Mekke’ye gelmiş, Kureyş de ona şöyle demişti: “Sen onların efendisi ve önderisin. Halkından kopmuş bu değersiz adam hakkında ne düşünüyorsun? O, kendisinin bizden üstün olduğunu iddia ediyor; oysa hac mekânının hizmetini gören, Kâbe’nin bakımını üstlenen ve hacılara su temin eden biziz.” Ka‘b da, “Siz ondan daha hayırlısınız” diye cevap verdi. Bunun üzerine Allah Teâlâ şöyle buyurdu: “Asıl soyu gelmeyecek olan, sana karşı nefret duyandır.” (Kevser, 108/3) — Kaynak: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Meali. Bezzâr bu olayı böyle rivayet etmiş ve isnadının sahih olduğunu belirtmiştir.
Atâ’dan nakledildiğine göre şöyle demiştir: “Bu sûre, Allah Resûlü’nün oğullarından birinin vefatı üzerine Ebû Leheb hakkında nazil oldu. Ebû Leheb müşriklerin yanına gidip, ‘Muhammed bu gece nesli kesilmiş biri hâline geldi’ dedi.” Bunun üzerine Allah Teâlâ şu âyeti indirdi: “Asıl soyu gelmeyecek olan, sana karşı nefret duyandır.” (Kevser, 108/3) — Kaynak: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Meali.
Süddî şöyle demiştir: “Bir adamın erkek çocukları öldüğünde insanlar, ‘Onun soyu kesildi’ derlerdi. Allah Resûlü’nün oğulları vefat edince de, ‘Muhammed’in soyu kesildi’ dediler. Bunun üzerine Allah Teâlâ şu âyeti indirdi: ‘Asıl soyu gelmeyecek olan, sana karşı nefret duyandır.’ (Kevser, 108/3) — Kaynak: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Meali.” Böylece onlar, kendi cehaletleri içinde, oğulları öldüğünde onun adının ve hatırasının da silineceğini zannettiler. Hâşâ! Aksine Allah, onun zikrini bütün âlemler boyunca kalıcı kılmış ve bütün kullarına onun şeriatine uymayı gerekli kılmıştır. Bu durum kıyamet gününe ve âhiretin başlangıcına kadar sürecektir. Allah’ın salât ve selâmı, toplanma gününe kadar ebediyen onun üzerine olsun. Kevser sûresinin tefsiri burada sona ermektedir. Hamd ve nimet Allah’a mahsustur.
Kaynak: Qur’anx, İbn Kesîr Tefsiri, 108:1.
Dikkat edilirse, bu kişiler Mübarek Peygamber’in kızları bulunduğunu gayet iyi biliyorlardı: “Bırakın onu; çünkü o, nesli devam etmeyen bir adamdır.”
Gerçekte babanız olmayan birini baba olarak ileri sürmek küfürdür.
Ebû Zerr’den rivayet edildiğine göre Allah Resûlü şöyle buyurmuştur: Kendi babası olduğunu bildiği hâlde bir başkasını bilerek babası olarak ileri süren hiçbir kimse yoktur ki bu davranışı küfür sayılmasın. Kendisinde bulunmayan bir şeyi iddia eden kimse bizden değildir; artık cehennemdeki yerini hazırlasın. Her kim bir başkasını kâfir veya Allah’ın düşmanı diye nitelendirir de o kimse gerçekte böyle değilse, bu söz dönüp kendisine yönelir.
Kaynak: Müslim, Îmân, 61. Diyanet yayınlarında, kişinin kendisini babasından başkasına nispet etmesi ağır biçimde yasaklanan fiiller arasında zikredilir.
Sa‘d şöyle rivayet etmiştir:
Allah Resûlü’nün şöyle buyurduğunu işittim: “Kendi babası olmadığını bile bile, babası dışında bir kimsenin oğlu olduğunu iddia eden kişiye cennet haramdır.” Ebû Bekre’ye bunu söylediğimde o da, “Bunu kulaklarım işitti ve kalbim Allah Resûlü’nden ezberledi” dedi. — Kaynak: Buhârî, Ferâiz, 29; Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı yayını Hadislerle İslâm.
Bir kimseye nesebi sebebiyle kin beslemeyiz. Aynı şekilde, bir kimseyi sırf nesebine dayanarak da övmeyiz.
Bu son derece güçlü bir vurgudur. Çünkü Mübarek Peygamber’in mirası, çok sayıda nesil bırakmış olmasına dayanmaz; zira Allah bu imkânı ondan almıştır. Onun mirası manevî bir mirastır. İslâm’a gelen herkes, bu kaynaktan nasibini alır. Mübarek Peygamber’i kabul eden kimse kopmuş değil, bilakis bu mirasa eklemlenmiş olur.
İslâm toplumu, falan ya da filan kişiden geldiğini iddia eden birinin yönlendirmesine açık olmamalıdır. Bilakis, İslâm toplumuna en takvâ sahibi, en diğerkâm ve en âdil kimseler önderlik etmelidir.
Ebû Hüreyre’den rivayet edildiğine göre:
Peygamberimiz şöyle buyurmuştur: “Allah, câhiliyenin kibir ve atalarla övünme duygusunu sizden uzaklaştırmıştır. İnsan ya takvâ sahibi bir mümindir yahut bedbaht bir günahkârdır. Sizler Âdem’in oğullarısınız. Âdem ise topraktandır. Bir kısım insanlar var ki, cehennem kömüründen başka bir şey olmayan adamlarla övünür. Bunlar ya bu övünmeden vazgeçer ya da Allah nezdinde, pisliği burunlarıyla yuvarlayan mayıs böceklerinden daha değersiz olurlar.” Kaynak: Ebû Dâvûd, Edeb, 120; Ahmed b. Hanbel, Müsned, II, 161.
Müslüman ümmet içerisinde yaygın olan bazı değerlendirmelere göre, İslâm tarihinin en büyük ve en güçlü Sünnî hilafetlerinden biri olarak kabul edilen Osmanlı Devleti, zaman içerisinde çeşitli iç ve dış dinamiklerin etkisiyle zayıflama sürecine girmiştir. Bu bağlamda, Muhammed b. Abdülvehhâb hakkında sıkça ileri sürülen iddialardan biri, onun Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’na karşı bir isyan hareketi başlattığı yönündedir.
Bununla birlikte, söz konusu iddiaya karşı geliştirilen yaklaşımlara göre, Muhammed b. Abdülvehhâb Osmanlı idaresi altında bulunan bir bölgede yaşamamıştır. Zira Arap Yarımadası’nın iç kesimlerinde yer alan Necid bölgesi, ilgili dönemde farklı Arap kabileleri tarafından yönetilmekte olup doğrudan Osmanlı merkezi idaresine tâbi bir bölge niteliği taşımamaktaydı.
Bu çerçevede öne çıkan bir diğer husus, Osmanlı Devleti’nin son döneminde meydana gelen siyasî ve askerî gelişmelerde, Britanya İmparatorluğu ile iş birliği içinde hareket eden ve kendisini Hz. Peygamber’in soyundan gelen bir şahsiyet olarak takdim eden Hüseyin b. Ali’nin oynadığı roldür.
Bu yaklaşım doğrultusunda, Osmanlı yönetimine karşı çıkan unsurlar arasında Eş‘arî/Şâfiî çizgisine mensup çevrelerin yanı sıra, Resûlullah’ın soyundan geldiklerini ileri süren bazı şahısların da bulunduğu ileri sürülmektedir. Bu durumun, Matürîdî/Hanefî karakter taşıyan Osmanlı yönetimine karşı belirgin bir siyasî ve toplumsal ayrışma sürecini beraberinde getirdiği değerlendirilmektedir.
Nihayetinde, söz konusu iş birliğinin en dikkat çekici figürleri arasında Şerif Hüseyin b. Ali ile Arabistanlı Lawrence’ın yer aldığı ifade edilmektedir. Hüseyin b. Ali, Britanyalıların hilesine kapıldı. Bu da, bugün birçok Müslüman ülkede gördüğümüz kaosun tetikleyicilerinden biri hâline geldi.
Büyük ihtimalle Britanyalılar, Hüseyin b. Ali’ye Türk hilafetinin yerine bir Arap hilafeti kurulacağına dair birtakım vaatlerde bulundular. Ne var ki bu, Britanya’nın yerine getirmeyi hiçbir zaman düşünmediği bir vaatti.
Onlar birbirlerinin koruyucuları, destekçileri ve müttefikleridir.
Britanya ile Fransa arasında yürütülen ve 1916 tarihli Sykes-Picot Anlaşması’yla sonuçlanan gizli müzakereler, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun bütünüyle iki güç arasında fiilen yeniden paylaştırılmasına yol açtı. Bunu daha sonra, Britanya’nın Filistin’de Yahudi halkı için bir millî yurt kurulmasına verdiği desteği güvence altına alan Balfour Deklarasyonu izledi. Esasen bu, İşgal Altındaki Filistin’in yaratılmasıdır; bazı çevrelerde buna “İsrail” de denilmektedir.
Buna karşılık Hüseyin, anlaşılan Britanya desteğine yeterince ikna olmuş olacak ki, Haziran 1916’da Osmanlılara karşı Arap İsyanı’nın başlatıldığını ilân etti. Britanya kuvvetlerinin Arap güçlerini desteklemesiyle birlikte, Hicaz bölgesi, Arap Yarımadası, Akabe ve Şam üzerinde hâkimiyet kurmayı başardılar.
1918’in sonlarında Hüseyin’in oğlu Faysal Şam’a girdi ve orada, Britanyalılarla babası arasında var olduğuna inandığı mutabakata uygun bir idarî yapı kurmaya başladı. Mart 1920’de Büyük Suriye’nin —Suriye, Transürdün, Filistin ve Lübnan’ın— yabancı güçlerin yönetiminden bağımsız olduğu ilân edildi ve Faysal’ın kral olduğu meşrutî bir monarşi kuruldu. Bu adım, Fransa’nın bölgedeki çıkarlarına doğrudan meydan okuyordu. Nisan 1920’deki San Remo Konferansı’nda Fransa’nın Suriye üzerindeki hak iddiası resmîleştirildi ve Suriye Fransız mandası altına alındı. Bu karar ve Faysal’ın anlaşma şartlarını kabul ederek boyun eğmesi, şiddetli karışıklıklara yol açtı. Temmuz ayında Fransız kuvvetleri bu karışıklıkları kolay bir zaferle bastırdı ve Faysal’ı sürgüne gönderdi.
Daha fazla bilgi için Hüseyin-McMahon yazışmalarını, San Remo Konferansı’nı ve Balfour Deklarasyonu’nu okuyabilirsiniz. Böylece Müslümanların, hangi toprağın kime ait olacağı konusunda gayrimüslimler tarafından nasıl yönlendirildiğini bütün yönleriyle görmüş olursunuz.
Mübarek Peygamber’in sözde üç torunları. Bunlardan biri Britanya’nın bir vekiline dönüşmüştü.
Peygamber Muhammed’in (sav) sözde soyundan gelen bu kişilerden ikisi, yani Faysal b. Hüseyin b. Ali el-Hâşimî ile Ali b. Hüseyin, Britanyalılarla iş birliği hususunda ihtiyatlı olunmasını tavsiye etmişti.
Peygamber Muhammed’in (sav) sözde soyundan gelen bir diğer isim ise Abdullah b. Avval b. el-Hüseyin’di. Abdullah, kardeşi Faysal’a—yani Peygamber’in (sav) sözde soyundan gelen bir başkasına—Fransızlara karşı yardım etmek yerine, Winston Churchill’den bir “çay daveti” kabul etti. Churchill, Abdullah’ı kardeşine küffara karşı yardım etmemesi yönünde ikna etti.
Abdullah, Müslümanların aleyhine olacak şekilde Britanyalılarla iş birliği yapılmasını tavsiye etti. Britanyalıların desteğiyle büyük ölçüde mükâfatlandırıldı; bu süreçte Yarbay Frederick Peake ile John Bagot Glubb da ona yardımcı oldu.
Nitekim “Arap Lejyonu”nu onlar kurdular. Gayrimüslimlere gösterdiği sadakat ve elini geri çekmesi karşılığında, 1946’da kendisine bağımsızlık görünümü veren bir statü verildi ve “Kral” Abdullah ilân edildi.
Kral Abdullah ayrıca, Filistin’in daha küçük Yahudi devletçiklerine bölünmesini öneren “Peel Komisyonu”nu da destekledi. 1947’de Filistin ikiye bölündüğünde, Britanya’nın vekili olan “Kral” Abdullah bunu destekleyen tek kişi oldu.
Britanya’nın vekili olan “Kral” Abdullah suikasta uğradı; ardından oğlu Talâl b. Abdullah, Britanya’nın vekil devleti olan Ürdün’ün yeni hükümdarı oldu. Ancak bu hükümranlığı yalnızca 13 ay sürdü; zira şizofreni nedeniyle tahttan çekilmeye zorlandı.
O meşhur “güvenilir” Britanyalı diplomatlar, onu psikiyatrik tedavi bahanesiyle ülkeden uzaklaştırmada rol oynadılar. Kral olduğunda Cenevre’de bir akıl hastanesinde bulunuyordu.
Allah en iyisini bilir; o hastanede ona neler yapmış olabilirler. Allah en iyisini bilir; o zavallı ruh çocukluğundan itibaren neler yaşadı. İslâm düşmanlarını kuşatan karanlığın sınırı yoktur.
Tahttan çekilmesinin ardından, arzusunun aksine Suud idaresindeki Hicaz’da yaşamasına izin verilmedi; bunun yerine ömrünün son dönemini İstanbul’daki bir sanatoryumda geçirmeye gönderildi ve 7 Temmuz 1972’de orada vefat etti.
Hüseyin dört ayrı evlilik yaptı ve aralarında Ürdün Kralı II. Abdullah ile Dubai hükümdarıyla evlenen Prenses Haya’nın da bulunduğu on bir çocuk sahibi oldu.
1967 Altı Gün Savaşı, Ürdün’ün Batı Şeria’yı kaybetmesiyle sonuçlandı. Bazıları, bu savaşın, Ürdün’ün bazı çevrelerde “İsrail” olarak anılan işgal altındaki Filistin’e toprak devretmesini sağlamak amacıyla kurgulandığını ileri sürmektedir.
1970 yılında Hüseyin, daha sonra Kara Eylül olarak anılacak süreçte ülkenin güvenliğini tehdit etmelerinin ardından Filistinli savaşçıları Ürdün’den çıkardı.
“Krallık” makamını taşıyan bu kişi, Filistin Kurtuluş Örgütü uluslararası alanda Filistinlilerin tek temsilcisi olarak tanındıktan sonra, 1988’de Ürdün’ün Batı Şeria ile bağlarını kesti. Böylece Filistinlileri fiilen kendi başlarına bıraktı.
“Kral” Hüseyin’in Lisa Halaby ile evliliği.
Mübarek Resûl’ün soyundan geldiklerine inanan ve bu sebeple kendi soylarının diğer bütün soy çizgilerinden üstün olduğunu düşünen kimseler açısından gerçekten şaşırtıcı olan şudur: El-Hüseyin b. Talal, evlenebileceği onca sözde şerife kadın arasından Toni Avril Gardiner’a yönelmiştir. Nasıl tanıştıkları yahut ilk teması kimin kurduğu kesin olarak bilinmemektedir. O, Londra’da bir büro çalışanıyken Ürdün’ün “kraliçesi” konumuna yükselmiştir.
Bu tür istisnalara tekrar tekrar rastlarsınız. Sözde şerif erkeklerden oluşan “üstün bir soy” anlayışını benimseyenlerin gayrimüslim kadınlara yönelmesi böyle bir istisnadır. Güneydoğu Asya’da ise bu durum, çoğu zaman, sözde şerife kadınlar açısından hayal kırıklığı doğurmaktadır; zira onlara, şerif olmayan Müslüman erkeklerle evlenme imkânı dahi tanınmamaktadır. Bunun yerine kendilerine ya akademik bir hayat sürmeleri ya da bekâr kalmaları telkin edilmektedir.
Toni, Hüseyin’den Abdullah es-Sânî b. el-Hüseyin’i dünyaya getirdi; bu kişi “Kral” II. Abdullah olarak da bilinmektedir. Nihayetinde 1971 yılında boşandılar.
Devam edecek olursak, “Kral” II. Abdullah üçüncü kez evlenmişti ve bu eşi 1977 yılında öldü. Onun ölümünden çok kısa bir süre sonra, 1978’de Amerikalı Lisa Halaby ile evlendi. Nasıl tanıştıkları yahut ilk teması kimin başlattığı kesin olarak bilinmemektedir. Lisa Halaby, sıradan bir Amerikalı kızdan Ürdün’ün “kraliçesi” konumuna yükseldi.
Argüman: Bağnazlık Değil, Tutarsızlık
Bu, şahsı hedef alan bir saldırı değildir.
Biz, “Gayrimüslim bir kadınla evlenmek her durumda yanlıştır ve yozlaşmışlığın delilidir” demiyoruz. Aksine, bu evlilikleri, soy temelli üstünlük anlayışının mantığı içindeki bir ikiyüzlülüğü ortaya koymak için gündeme getiriyoruz.
Argümanın yapısı şöyledir:
İddia: Haşimîler ve onları destekleyenler, toplumsal ve siyasî otoritelerini, üstün ve mübarek bir soyun parçası oldukları düşüncesine dayandırmaktadır; yani Hz. Muhammed’in kızı Fâtıma ve onun eşi Ali üzerinden gelen doğrudan soy mensupları oldukları iddiasına.
Bu iddianın gerektirdiği sonuç: Eğer bu soy gerçekten onların kendilerine has değer ve asaletlerinin kaynağıysa, o hâlde bu soyun korunması ve ona hürmet edilmesi en yüksek derecede önem taşımalıdır. Bu “mübarek soy” içinde evlenmek, onun saflığını ve merkezî konumunu muhafaza etmenin mantıkî yolu olurdu.
Gözlemlenen fiil: Biz, Haşimî kralların —Hüseyin b. Ali’nin oğulları, Kral Hüseyin ve Kral II. Abdullah’ın— yalnızca Haşimî olmayan değil, aynı zamanda Batılı ve gayrimüslim olan kadınlarla (Toni Gardiner, Lisa Halaby) yahut bütünüyle ilgisiz aile çevrelerinden gelen kişilerle yaptıkları tekrar eden evliliklere dikkat çekiyoruz.
Tutarsızlık ithamı: Sorulan soru, “Bir Müslüman erkek nasıl olur da bir Hristiyan kadınla evlenir?” değildir. Asıl soru şudur: “Kimliğiniz ve iktidar iddianız, özel ve seçkin bir gruba mensup olmanıza dayanıyorsa, fiilleriniz neden bu grubun sınırlarını böylesine hiçe saydığınızı göstermektedir?” Bizim söylediğimiz basitçe şudur: Onlar kendi propagandalarına kendileri inanmamaktadır. Soylarını, diğer Müslümanlar üzerinde güç elde etmek için siyasî bir araç olarak kullanmakta; fakat onu, korunması için kendi içinde evlenmeyi gerektiren mukaddes bir emanet olarak görmemektedirler.
“Kral” Abdullah’ın dördüncü “kraliçesi”nin başlıca icraatlarından biri, hımarı, yani takvâ ve salâh elbisesini terk etmesi oldu; oysa bu, dindar Müslüman kadınlar arasında yaygın olan bir örtünme biçimidir. Bugün “Kraliçe Nûr” adıyla anılan Lisa Halaby, dünyanın dört bir yanındaki genç Müslüman kadınlara, eğer kendisi takvâ ve salâh elbisesini giymeyi gerekli görmüyorsa, onların da bunu gerekli görmemeleri gerektiğini göstermede başarılı olmuştur.
Bu gelenek, Ürdün’ün yeni “kralı”nın eşi “Kraliçe Rania” ile de sürmüştür. Takvâ ve salâh elbisesi dışında her şeyle sportif ve şık görünme eğilimi devam etmiştir.
Şüphesiz bunun, kolay etkilenebilen birçok Müslüman genç üzerinde bıraktığı tesir şu olmuştur: “Vay canına! Demek ki Müslüman kadınların başörtüsü takması gerekmiyormuş!”
İşte böyle. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun tabutuna çakılan son çivi, Peygamber Muhammed’in sözde soyundan gelenler tarafından çakılmıştır. Bu sözde soy mensupları da ardından, işgal altındaki Filistin dâhil olmak üzere—bazı çevrelerde “İsrail” diye anılan yer de buna dahildir—Müslüman beldelerinin ve topraklarının parça parça bölünmesine yardımcı olmuşlardır.
Ayrıca Prenses Haya’nın, bugün Dubai’nin yöneticisiyle evli olduğunu da biliyoruz; bu kişinin işgal altındaki Filistin karşısında kayıtsız bir tutum sergilediği görülmektedir.
Mübarek Peygamber’in sözde doğrudan soyundan gelenler, gerçekte herkes gibi sıradan insanlardır. Onlar da yüksek bir saadet ve doğruluk mertebesine ulaşabilirler. Takvâ ve iyilik alanındaki amelleri hayranlık uyandıracak derecede olabilir. Fakat onlar da herkes gibi beşerî zaaflara, tutkulara, şehvete, arzularda ve ihtiraslarda düşebilirler.
Onlardan bir kısmı sâlihtir, bağlılık ve yakınlığa lâyıktır; bir kısmı ise habistir, onlardan uzak durulması ve reddedilmesi gerekir.
Biz, Ali neslinden gelenlerle zahirde görünen hâllerine göre ilişki kurar ve muamele ederiz. Sırf nesep sebebiyle onlara boyun eğmeyiz. Bizi, rehber olarak Kur’an’ı ve Sünnet’i esas alan her Müslüman gibi görebilirsiniz.
Ey araştırmacı, ey hakikat arayıcıları; size, şimdiye kadar okuyabileceğiniz en tehlikeli kitaplardan birini paylaşacağız.
Haşimîler, Ehl-i Beyt adına Müslümanları sayılamayacak kadar çok öldürdüler; en doğrusunu Allah bilir. Bu kitap Arapça. Suçlarını ayrıntılarıyla anlatıyor.
“De ki: Ey mülkün gerçek sahibi olan Allahım! Mülkü dilediğine verirsin, dilediğinden çekip alırsın; dilediğini yüceltirsin, dilediğini alçaltırsın. Her türlü iyilik senin elindedir. Şüphesiz sen her şeye kādirsin.” (Âl-i İmrân, 3/26) — Kaynak: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Meali.
“And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight and the heart – about all those [one] will be questioned.” (Qur’an 17:36)
﷽
For the school of the Muslims, the People of the Truth and Steadfastness, for us, the lone narrator reports are not proofs in theology. As for belief the majority of the Ummah (nation) does not accept if for issues of theology.
However, that being said it should be clearly understood that the entire of the Ummah (nation) of The Blessed Messenger (saw) use the lone narrator reports (ahad) for ahkam/rulings/jurisprudence.
May Allah (swt) bless the translator. Yet, again another important video for those who are looking into the school of the Muslims, and our beliefs.
The teacher is Shaykh Massoud bin Mohammed Al Miqbali (h). May Allah continue to benefit the Ummah by him.
Here is the transcription of the above into English.
“As for the solitary report (khabar al-wāḥid), we do not build a belief upon it. I will not prolong the discussion on this issue—the issue of not establishing belief on the basis of solitary reports—for it is a matter that is settled from the very first encounter and requires no lengthy exertion.” -Shaykh Massoud bin Mohammed Al Miqbali
“With a sharp tongue, and the speech of those who argue for its authority, they become entrenched. For when I debated a certain scholar among them during a journey to Egypt on this very issue, I said to him: “O Shaykh—it is astonishing that you do not build a creed upon a ḥadīth whose authenticity you affirm.” We replied: “Yes, a ḥadīth may be authentic, and yet we do not build a belief upon it. Just as a Qur’anic verse is for us certain in its transmission, but we do not build a belief upon it because it belongs to the ambiguous (mutashābih). Regarding the ambiguous, our Lord, may He be glorified and exalted, said: ‘As for those in whose hearts is deviation, they follow what is ambiguous in it’ — even though it is the Qur’an, yet those who follow it are described as having deviation. So what about ḥadīths and narrations? A ḥadīth may be authentic, with a sound chain of transmission, but no belief is built upon it. Why? Because you yourselves, O noble Shaykh, unanimously hold that the authentication and weakening of a solitary report is a matter of probability (ẓann), not certainty. Is it not so?” -Shaykh Massoud bin Mohammed Al Miqbali
“He said, “Indeed.” I said: “If authentication is a matter of probability, and one builds upon probability—cease.” The Shaykh’s donkey stopped at the door of the impasse. He thought and reflected—how he reflected! Then he frowned and scowled. Then he returned with another principle to escape this grip, saying: “Yes, except what is narrated by Bukhārī and Muslim—because the ummah has received them with acceptance.” -Shaykh Massoud bin Mohammed Al
“I said to him: “This issue requires a separate debate—but you have conceded that the authentic solitary ḥadīth, its authenticity is based on probability, therefore no belief is built upon it. We have agreed on this much, praise be to Allah. As for what remains—what the two Shaykhs (Bukhārī and Muslim) narrated—we will come to that later in the debate.” -Shaykh Massoud bin Mohammed Al
“When the debate took place, and I confronted the Shaykh with the texts of his own predecessors and imams, that the majority of jurists and ḥadīth scholars had criticized—indeed, they did not equate, they did not distinguish between Bukhārī, Muslim, and others—he said: “Do not bring me al-Nawawī, nor Ibn ‘Abd al-Shakūr, nor these others. Bring me imams whom I regard as authorities.” -Shaykh Massoud bin Mohammed Al
“I said: “Do you regard Ibn Taymiyyah as an authority?” He said, “Yes.” I said: “Ibn Taymiyyah weakened ḥadīths of Bukhārī in Majmū‘ al-Fatāwā—he weakened more than one authentic ḥadīth. Is this true or not, O our Shaykh?” He said, “It is true.” I said, “Praise be to Allah, you are trapped.” Every preacher says: “This is an imam you regard as an authority. He weakens ḥadīths of Bukhārī.” Is it lawful for you, but forbidden for others? It is forbidden for the birds of every kind, but permissible for you? He says: “Weakened ḥadīths in Bukhārī and Muslim.” -Shaykh Massoud bin Mohammed Al
“Then the Shaykh said: “This is an issue I will investigate seriously. I will leave you now and close the dialogue to examine the matter thoroughly. Then we will meet again—a serious investigation. A creedal issue requires reconsideration and serious research. This is not strange, because one of the fruits of adopting solitary reports is that some will establish a belief based on a ḥadīth they consider authentic, while another comes, based on the weakness of that same ḥadīth, and demolishes that belief. Therefore, do not be surprised if you find in the books of these people their statement that on this issue—a creedal issue—there are up to thirty opinions. And this is a creedal issue! They say: ‘There is disagreement on the matter’—disagreement over creed.” -Shaykh Massoud bin Mohammed Al
Prima Qur’an Comments:
What Shaykh Massoud said is one of our founding principles for establishing a clear belief is to base our faith upon that which is certain.
“Yes, a ḥadīth may be authentic, and yet we do not build a belief upon it. Just as a Qur’anic verse is for us certain in its transmission, but we do not build a belief upon it because it belongs to the ambiguous (mutashābih).”
“He it is Who has sent down the Book upon you; therein are verses determined; they are the Mother of the Book, and others symbolic. As for those whose hearts are given to swerving, they follow that of it which is symbolic, seeking temptation and seeking its interpretation. And none know its interpretation save Allah and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in it; all is from our Lord.” And none remember, save those who possess intellect.” (Qur’an 3:7)
We have certainty in the transmission of the Qur’an. Yet, Allah (swt) is telling us that the Qur’an has verses that are symbolic (ambiguous) or not fixed upon one understanding.
Many misunderstand our rejection of an understanding of a hadith as a rejection of the hadith itself. This is an error.
“That Allah may forgive (liyaghfira) for you (Oh Muhammed) what preceded of your (dhanbika) sins and what will follow and complete His favor upon you and guide you to a straight path.” (Qur’an 48:2)
﷽
Title: Are the prophets and messengers infallible and protected from error?
Attribution: His Eminence Shaykh Kahlan bin Nabhan al-Kharusi
The translation is from the following video.
Brother Badr asks: Are the prophets and messengers infallible and protected from error? Adam (as), as he says, made a mistake by eating from the tree. Moses (as) made a mistake by killing the Coptic man. Jonah (as) made a mistake by leaving his village without Allah’s permission. So how do we reconcile what we hear — that the prophets are infallible — with these mistakes?
Shaykh Kahlan bin Nabhan al-Kharusi responds:
Questioner: What was the original question?
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Are the prophets and messengers infallible and protected from error?
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Regarding clarification of certain matters: what one finds among scholars on the issue of prophetic infallibility is that their intent in this matter pertains to sins and transgressions, not to mistakes in general.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Sometimes some scholars use the word “mistake,” but they mean sins and transgressions. This must be clear. The discussion on prophetic infallibility relates to committing sins and transgressions.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: This is the first point.
The second point: There is agreement among Muslim scholars — or the majority of Muslim scholars — on the issue of prophetic infallibility from sins and transgressions. Regarding anything connected to revelation and conveying the message, they are infallible and protected from error or mistake in that.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: And anything that could involve shirk (associating partners with Allah), whether apparent or hidden, they are infallible from it. Likewise, they are unanimously protected from major sins.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: These matters are points of agreement among all scholars.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Among the vast majority of scholars, any opinions to the contrary are anomalous and not given weight.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: The remaining discussion concerns minor sins. Scholars have differing views.
Some hold that minor sins could occur from prophets.
Others say minor sins could occur before prophethood but not after;
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: and some deny the occurrence of minor sins from them altogether.
Questioner: Yes. May Allah’s prayers and peace be upon them all.
Shaykh al-Kharusi:These are the various positions. According to our scholars, they are free from minor sins both before and after prophethood.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: However, the view that minor sins could possibly occur from them — without persistence in them and without them being left unaddressed — is also a well-known view. Some even report that this is the position of the majority of scholars.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Regarding minor sins without persistence and without being left unaddressed.
Questioner: Yes. So they do not persist in them, nor do they remain upon them, nor are they left unrebuked.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: And no sin or punishment results from them.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Yes.
As for those who hold that minor sins are impossible for prophets, both before and after prophethood, how do they interpret what is mentioned in the Book of Allah or authentically reported in the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) that appears to involve a sin? They interpret it as doing what is contrary to what is better and more appropriate for the station of prophethood. This station is the highest and most perfect of stations. Therefore, something that is contrary to what is better — inconsistent with the station of prophethood — could occur from them. This is a good interpretation, as it shows proper etiquette toward the prophets of Allah (may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon them all) and interprets their actions in a good and acceptable manner.
Now we come to some examples that scholars mention: what occurred from Adam (as), what happened with Moses in that incident when he struck the Coptic man and killed him —
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: and what happened with Dhul-Nun (Jonah) when he fled to the laden ship —
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: and some other examples. I say that each of these has an interpretation.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Regarding Adam and his wife eating from the tree, the correct view is that that stage was not a stage of religious obligation (taklif). Yes.
This has been reported by several exegetes, and it was greatly relied upon by Imam al-Tahir ibn Ashur in Al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir. He reported it, as did others before him, and they mentioned that it is the view of the majority: that stage in Adam’s preparation, training, and upbringing was not a stage of religious obligation but rather a stage of discipline.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Therefore, what occurred from him that appears to be error and disobedience was actually a violation of the discipline of training — violating what was required for his preparation and development. Ibn Ashur gave an example: like the head of a household training his children. When they disobey his command — even if the act itself is not inherently sinful or described as a sin —
Questioner: Yet it is disobedience to the head of the household’s command, a deviation from his path.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: For example, he tells them, “Do not enter this room,” and they enter.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: So this falls under violation of discipline because it was not a stage of religious obligation. That was not a stage of legal responsibility.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: This is a good interpretation that brings together various points made about the story of Adam and his eating from the tree. Moreover, the noble Qur’an explicitly describes Adam as having forgotten — “And Adam disobeyed his Lord and erred” (Qur’an 20:121) — but he forgot, and no firm resolve was found in him. So it occurred as an oversight and forgetfulness on his part, not as a deliberate intention to disobey Allah’s command.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: As for what occurred with Moses (as) — for you asked about it —
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: That was not a sin on Moses’ part but rather an error. Yes.
He intended to defend the Israelite from the Coptic man because the Coptic man was transgressing.
Questioner: He was an aggressor.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: So Moses intended to push him away, and he struck him. But Allah decreed that he died from that blow.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: This is accidental killing. Therefore, it is not described as a sin. However, due to the station of prophethood, Moses sought forgiveness from his Lord and said, “My Lord, indeed I have wronged myself” (Qur’an 28:16). He sought forgiveness from his Lord because he did not intend that, nor did he want it to happen. It occurred from him while his intention was to forbid evil.
Questioner: But God decreed what happened.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Yes.
Thus, what is mentioned in the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah(saw) regarding this matter is interpreted in this way.
In summary, it is important to pay attention to the following: matters related to conveying revelation, shirk (whether apparent or hidden), and major sins — the prophets are infallible in these.
Questioner: Infallible.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Infallible, peace be upon them.
As for minor sins, there is a difference of opinion, and the various views have been mentioned. As for errors — those things that are not sins and not within the scope of religious obligations — their situation in this regard is like that of all human beings: they may make a mistake in some matter that is not a sin, for which no legal obligation had been established. And Allah knows best.
Questioner: Or for which no obligation had previously existed. “May Allah pardon you — why did you give them permission?” (Qur’an 9:43) — for example.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Yes. This, as I said, is interpreted as doing what is contrary to what is better.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: This is a matter of proper etiquette. It has been said that it was left to their own judgment, and they exercised ijtihad. So the matter is clear. As for those who hold that an error occurred, they describe it as doing what is contrary to what is better. And Allah knows best.
Questioner: Yes. O my hope, O my hope.
Prima Qur’an comments.
Thus, on prophetic infallibility there are four points.
The discussion on prophetic infallibility relates to committing sins and transgressions.
Regarding anything connected to revelation and conveying the message, they are infallible and protected from error or mistake in that.
And anything that could involve shirk (associating partners with Allah), whether apparent or hidden, they are infallible from it.
As for errors — those things that are not sins and not within the scope of religious obligations — their situation in this regard is like that of all human beings: they may make a mistake in some matter that is not a sin, for which no legal obligation had been established. And Allah knows best
Likewise, they are unanimously protected from major sins.
Summary:
They are protected from making any mistakes or errors in conveying the revelation.
They do not do anything that involves shirk.
They are not protected from making errors or mistakes in personal ijtihad like all human beings.
They do not commit major sins.
An example of point 3.
Musa b. Talha reported:
I and Allah’s Messenger (saw) happened to pass by people near the date-palm trees. He (the Holy Prophet) said: What are these people doing? They said: They are grafting, i. e. they combine the male with the female (tree) and thus they yield more fruit. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (saw) said: I do not find it to be of any use. The people were informed about it and they abandoned this practice. Allah’s Messenger (saw) (was later) on informed (that the yield had dwindled), whereupon he said: If there is any use of it, then they should do it, for it was just a personal opinion of mine, and do not go after my personal opinion; but when I say to you anything on behalf of Allah, then do accept it, for I do not attribute lie to Allah, the Exalted and Glorious.
The discussion concerns minor sins. There are three views.
Some hold that minor sins could occur from prophets.
Others say minor sins could occur before prophethood but not after.
Some deny the occurence of minor sins from them altogether.
Shaykh al-Kharusi pauses and corrects himself.
He says: “According to our scholars, they are free from minor sins both before and after prophethood.”
Then he corrects himself: “However, the view that minor sins could possibly occur from them — without persistence in them and without them being left unaddressed — is also a well-known view. Some even report that this is the position of the majority of scholars.”
Some examples from the Qur’an.
Adam-alayhi salam
“And We had already taken a promise from Adam before, but he (fanasiya) forgot; and We found not in him determination.” (Qur’an 20:115)
فَنَسِيَ (fa-nasiya) = “but he forgot” (or “then he forgot”)
This word for forget or negligence is the wording used to describe the Christians who received the wrath of Allah (swt). However, notice the verse above says: ‘We found not in him determination.’ Meaning persistence in his sin.
“And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they (fanasu)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)
“Dhu’n-Nun” (the Man of the Whale) and “Sahib al-Hut” (the Companion of the Fish) or Jonah.
“And [mention] the man of the fish, when he went off in anger and thought that We would not decree [anything] upon him. And he called out within the darknesses, “There is no deity except You; exalted are You. Indeed, I have been of the (l-ẓālimīna) wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 21:87)
“Then the fish swallowed him, while he was (mulīmun)blameworthy.” (Qur’an 37:142)
That same word is used in the Qur’an to describe the state of Pharaoh when he was cast into the sea.
“So We took him and his soldiers and cast them into the sea, and he was blameworthy.” (Qur’an 51:40)
It should be noted that Pharoah is in the barā’ah ḥaqīqah. One truly cut off from Allah (swt).
Then there is this verse where Allah (swt) addresses the Blessed Prophet (saw).
“That Allah may forgive (liyaghfira)for you what preceded of your (dhanbika) sins and what will follow and complete His favor upon you and guide you to a straight path.” (Qur’an 48:2)
When addressing Pharaoh a word from the same Arabic root is used.
“[Theirs is] like the custom of the people of Pharaoh and those before them. They denied Our signs, so Allah seized them for their (bidhunūbihim)sins. And Allah is severe in penalty.” (Qur’an 3:11)
In classical Arabic, Dhanb literally means:
A fault or shortcoming like human oversight or “leaving the better option” (tark al-awla).
A sin, crime, or offense
Also note that the verse above says: That Allah may forgive (liyaghfira)Forgiveness is only for that which needs forgiveness. Which doesn’t necessarily entail a moral sin. A guest spills a drink and stains someone’s carpet. The guest says: “Please forgive me.”
Some Muslim translators were embarassed by this because the text is a direct assault upon their contrived beliefs.
This is why as Muslims we follow the evidence. We do not follow our desires.
*Mohammed Tahir-ul-Qadri*has translated the above as:
“So that Allah forgives, for your sake, all the earlier and later sins (of all those people) of your Umma ([Community]* who struggled, fought and sacrificed by your command), and (this way) may complete His blessing on you (outwardly and inwardly) in the form of Islam’s victory and forgiveness for your Umma (Community), and may keep (your Umma) firm-footed on the straight path (through your mediation).”
* Note: We understand the people of Sufism to be lovers of Al-Haqq (The Truth) and not people who manipulate the religion.
It is rather obvious why people would interpret the text like this. Because when you have a Pir-Murid (master-disciple) culture where people are expected to pledge fealty to the Pir, then it becomes impossible for the Pir to commit even the smallest infraction or mistake.
The following lecure by Shaykh Hilal Al Wardi (h) is also very eye opening:
The methodology of the Prophets in dealing with sins. Shaykh Hilal Al Wardi.
“O humanity! Eat from what is lawful and good on the earth and do not follow Satan’s footsteps. He is truly your sworn enemy. He only incites you to commit evil and indecency, and to claim against Allah what you do not know.” (Qur’an 2:168-169)
﷽
According to Islamic teachings does Allah have attributes such as teeth, biceps, 66 thumbs, 17 hooves, a tail, gills, or fur?
First, let it be clear that we are not aware of any sects among Muslims today who does affirm such things for Allah (swt).
However, we need to understand something.
If someone asks usdoes Allah have attributes such as teeth, biceps, 66 thumbs, 17 hooves, a tail, gills, or fur we can answer absolutley not. We can negate these for Allah (swt). This is because of our holistic approach to the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
We have dealt with that in the following articles:
However, there is another vocal group among the Muslims who would not be able to deny that Allah (swt) has attributes such as teeth, biceps, 66 thumbs, 17 hooves, a tail, gills, or fur.
The best they can do is to say: We have no revealed texts in regard to these attributes. We can neither affirm nor deny.
They could quote the following:
“Although they have no knowledge of this. They follow nothing but assumptions. And surely assumptions can in no way replace the truth.” (Qur’an 53:28)
The text is warning us not to speculate about that which we have no certain knowledge of. Howver, according to the appraoch of these Muslims the above text does not negate those possible attributes for Allah (swt).
Likewise, we may outright reject the idea of Allah (swt) having attributes such as teeth, biceps, 66 thumbs, 17 hooves, a tail, gills, or fur by quoting the following:
“To those who disbelieve in the Hereafter belong all evil qualities, whereas to Allah belong the finest attributes. And He is the Almighty, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 16:60)
But to those who interpret otherwise, they would claim that there is nothing inherently evil to Allah (swt) having teeth, biceps, 66 thumbs, 17 hooves, a tail, gills, or fur.
Other examples:
Say: “Take on Allah’s colour.” And whose colour is better than Allah’s? It is Him that we serve.” (Qur’an 2:138)
The Arabic Term: The word used is Sibghah (صِبْغَةَ), which literally means dye, tint, or color.
The Meaning of “Colour of Allah”: It refers to the true faith of Islam that permeates a person’s inner and outer life, just as dye changes the color of a cloth entirely. It represents purity, sincerity, and the adoption of divine characteristics in behavior and worship.
However, some Muslims may understand from the above verse that Allah (swt) has a colour! Though accordingly, Allah (swt) has not revealed what colour he is it leaves some to wonder rather Allah (swt) is white (in a way that befits his majesty) or rather Allah (swt) is black (in a way that befits his majesty).
Those Muslims do not seem to understand or appreciate that the Qur’an and Sunnah has Majaz.
Majaz (مجاز) in Arabic has a few related meanings depending on the context, but the most common and important one — especially in language, literature, and Islamic studies — is figurative language or metaphor/trope.
“Such as took their religion to be mere amusement and play, and were deceived by the life of the world.” That day shall We forget them as (كَمَا) they forgot the meeting of this day of theirs, and as they were wont to reject Our signs.” (Qur’an 7:51)
The Arabic word كَمَا (transliterated as kamā or kama) is a very common conjunction and particle. Its primary meaning is “as”, “like”, or “just as” (indicating similarity, manner, or comparison).
We know that it is a huge error to say that Allah (swt) forgot anything.
“He replied, “That knowledge is with my Lord in a Record. My Lord neither falters nor forgets.” (Qur’an 20:52)
Another way to translate Qur’an 7:51 would be:
“Those who took this faith as mere amusement and play and were deluded by worldly life.” “Today We will ignore them just as they ignored the coming of this Day of theirs and for rejecting Our revelations.” (Qur’an 7:51)
You can see multiple translations of the above verse here:
While Allah (swt) does not forget anyone, He may leave those who are arrogant and refuse to repent, or those who commit sins against others without seeking forgiveness, to face the consequences of their actions. This can be interpreted as a form of divine abandonment.
This is why translating as ignoring makes more sense in light of the other verses of the Qur’an that clearly state that Allah (swt) is All Knowing.
It also make sense in regard to human beings. No human being really forgets that they will die or ultimately meet their fate. However, they put this issues off. Proof of this is how many people who believe in the afterlife have not even made a will?
There is Majaz in the hadith as well.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “Allah said, ‘I will declare war against him who shows hostility to a pious worshipper of Mine. And the most beloved things with which My slave comes nearer to Me, is what I have enjoined upon him; and My slave keeps on coming closer to Me through performing Nawafil (praying or doing extra deeds besides what is obligatory) till I love him, so I become his sense of hearing with which he hears, and his sense of sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he grips, and his leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me, I will give him, and if he asks My protection (Refuge), I will protect him; (i.e. give him My Refuge) and I do not hesitate to do anything as I hesitate to take the soul of the believer, for he hates death, and I hate to disappoint him.”
So to say that Allah (swt) becomes something means he was not that before. This means that Allah (swt) changes based upon a believer’s particular state at any given moment.
The outward reading of the hadith leads to unacceptable positions such as: incarnation (hulul) or union (ittihad).
“Say “Each is waiting, so keep waiting! You will soon know who is on the Straight Path and is guided.” (Qur’an 20:135)
Prima Quran 