“Indeed, Allah only accepts from the righteous [who fear Him].” (Quran 5:27)
﷽
His Eminence, Shaykh Masoud Al Miqbali (h) informs us about a most dangerous matter. It is a false understanding that it is widespread and pervasive among the Muslims today!
We have translated his warning to us below.
“Among the misconceptions that have come to us is that someone tells you, “Do good deeds and bad deeds, and Allah will hold you accountable for this and for that.” But what is more common is the idea that “Allah willing, if your good deeds are many, the bad deeds will not harm you.” This concept is completely incorrect, absolutely false.”
“Take, for example, the narration in Sahih al-Bukhari about one of the Companions, nicknamed the “drunken donkey,” who used to drink wine. They flogged him once, twice, and three times. One of the Companions became very angry with him and said something bad about him. The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied to that person, saying: “Do not say that. For indeed, this drunkard, this addict to wine, loves Allah and His Messenger.”
“If an alcoholic hears this hadith, what would he say? Once, an alcoholic heard people speaking on a ‘Mawlid’ occasion—they were using symbolisms, like Sufi poets. He said: “Only a hero drinks wine.” And this is a person who is immersed in wine 24 hours a day, getting drunk. He said into the microphone: “Only a hero drinks wine.”
“He hears the religious preacher say, “Wine is forbidden, wine is forbidden.” Then he hears what the ‘Mawlid’ speaker says: “Only a hero drinks wine.” They might mean spiritual wine—the wine of remembrance and love of Allah. But he… they raise their banners, and I raise the banner of Najd. Every eye weeps over what grieves it.”
“This is the essence of “La ilaha illa Allah” (There is no god but Allah). It does not permit any person, no matter how high-ranking, even if he were Adam (peace be upon him), to deviate from its requirements. The presence of a sin that a person persists in blocks the acceptance of all his good deeds, even if he says “La ilaha illa Allah.“
“Take the son of Adam (Cain and Abel). The one whose offering was not accepted from him was not a disbeliever, nor was he a monotheist? He was a monotheist, not a disbeliever. Evidence for this is that he offered a sacrifice to Allah. If he had been a polytheist, he would not have drawn near to Allah. If he had been an atheist, he would not have drawn near to Allah. His drawing near to Allah indicates that he believed and affirmed Allah’s existence. So, an offering was presented. One was accepted from one and not accepted from the other. So, the one from whom it was not accepted—he has a problem. Monotheism alone is not sufficient for his deeds to be accepted. It is not enough. He affirms “La ilaha illa Allah.” Where is the flaw? What is the problem? What prevented and barred the acceptance of his deed?
Allah says: “Indeed, Allah only accepts from the righteous [who fear Him].”(Quran 5:27)
“Acceptance is for those who remain within the framework of “La ilaha illa Allah” and do not step outside it. It is for those who make “La ilaha illa Allah” a way of life, not just a phrase muttered on the lips or believed in the heart, then sometimes they act according to its requirements and sometimes they step outside it. “La ilaha illa Allah” entails commitment, belief, application, adherence, and steadfastness upon it.”
“Allah says to His Prophet (peace be upon him): “So be steadfast as you are commanded.” (Quran 11:112)
He says: “So be steadfast towards Him and seek His forgiveness… Indeed, those who have said, ‘Our Lord is Allah,’ and then remained steadfast – no fear will be upon them, nor will they grieve.” (Quran 46:13)
“One cannot take part of the religion and leave part of it.”
“So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part? Then what is the recompense for those who do that among you except disgrace in worldly life; and on the Day of Resurrection they will be sent back to the severest of punishment.” (Quran 2:85)
Allah did not say, “We will reward you for your faith in what you believed in and punish you for your disbelief in what you disbelieved in.” He made that faith as if it were nothing.”
“So, a person must not dare to transgress any of Allah’s boundaries under the pretext that “the statement ‘La ilaha illa Allah’ will intercede for me.”
Do you know about whom the following verse was revealed?
The verse: “O you who have believed, do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet or be loud to him in speech like the loudness of some of you to others, lest your deeds become worthless while you perceive not.” (Quran 49:2)
About whom was this verse revealed? It was revealed about Abu Bakr and Umar, as narrated by Al-Bukhari.”
Narrated Ibn Abi Mulaika:
The two righteous persons were about to be ruined. They were Abu Bakr and `Umar who raised their voices in the presence of the Prophet (ﷺ) when a mission from Bani Tamim came to him. One of the two recommended Al-Aqra’ bin Habeas, the brother of Bani Mujashi (to be their governor) while the other recommended somebody else. (Nafi`, the sub-narrator said, I do not remember his name). Abu Bakr said to `Umar, “You wanted nothing but to oppose me!” `Umar said, “I did not intend to oppose you.” Their voices grew loud in that argument, so Allah revealed: ‘O you who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet.’ (49.2) Ibn Az-Zubair said, “Since the revelation of this Verse, `Umar used to speak in such a low tone that the Prophet (ﷺ) had to ask him to repeat his statements.” But Ibn Az-Zubair did not mention the same about his (maternal) grandfather (i.e. Abu Bakr).
(O you who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet,) This contains another kind of favorable behavior. Allah the Exalted is teaching the believers that they should not raise their voices above the voice of the Prophet. It was stated that this Ayah was revealed about Abu Bakr and `Umar. Al-Bukhari recorded that Ibn Abi Mulaykah said, “The two righteous ones, Abu Bakr and `Umar, almost earned destruction when they raised their voices before the Prophet who was receiving the delegation of Bani Tamim. One of them recommended Al-Aqra` bin Habis the member of the Banu Mujashi` while the other recommended another man. Nafi` (a subnarrator) said: “I don’t remember his name.” Abu Bakr said to `Umar, `You only wanted to contradict me,’ while `Umar said, `I did not intend to contradict you.’ Their voices then became loud, thereupon Allah the Exalted sent down this Ayah,يأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ لاَ تَرْفَعُواْ أَصْوَتَكُمْ فَوْقَ صَوْتِ النَّبِىِّ وَلاَ تَجْهَرُواْ لَهُ بِالْقَوْلِ كَجَهْرِ بَعْضِكُمْ لِبَعْضٍ أَن تَحْبَطَ أَعْمَـلُكُمْ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ تَشْعُرُونَ(O you who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak aloud to him in talk as you speak aloud to one another, lest your deeds should be thwarted while you perceive not.)’‘ `Abdullah bin Az-Zubayr said, “After that, `Umar’s voice was so low that the Messenger of Allah had to ask him to repeat what he said so that he could understand what he was saying to him.” `Abdullah bin Az-Zubayr did not mention the same regarding his father, Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him. Muslim did not collect this Hadith. In another narration collected by Al-Bukhari, he said that a delegation from the tribe of Banu Tamim came to the Prophet and that Abu Bakr recommended Al-Qa`qa` bin Ma`bad to be appointed as their leader, while `Umar recommended Al-Aqra` bin Habis. Muslim did not collect this narration.
“How will you comprehend what the steep ascent is? It is freeing a slave (raqabatin -a neck) or giving of food at the time of famine to an orphan or near of kin or some needy person in distress.” (Qur’an 90:12-16)
“It is not righteousness that you turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves (l-riqābi) freeing the necks -slaves); to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah-fearing.” (Qur’an 2:177)
“When it is said to them, “Follow what Allah has revealed,” they reply, “No! We follow what we found our forefathers practicing.” (Qur’an 2:170)
﷽
This topic is not a difficult one to address. Especially when we realize some very basic things about human beings and human nature.
Humans have engaged in wars, slavery, marriage, divorce, and trade before the coming of the final revelation, the Qur’an.
The Qur’an comes to address the reality of what was happening in society. It addresses the situation on the ground. The Qur’an did not come to bring slavery but rather to address it. When Allah addresses slavery, He is giving rules to manage an existing situation, not expressing His endorsement of it.
The issue of Raqab (Slave) & Milk Al Yamin (Those whom your right hand possess) is through one means and one means only. That is via the context of war.
Outside the context of war, there is not a single verse in the Qur’an that calls for holding anyone as captive.
The other point that one will not fail to notice is that Raqab (slave) in the Qur’an is never in the context of the Muslims having them. Rather, it is in the context of the disbelievers having them and Muslims are encouraged to free them from the disbelievers.
Raqaba (Those whose necks are bound =under non Muslims) We should clarify that this also does mean Muslims who had slaves prior to embracing Islam. Ma-Malakat Aymanukum (Those whom your right-hand posses /those whom you are your oath of protection/You are a custodian over them)
The decision on what to do after victory over one’s opponent.
This decision affects men, women and children. This decision would be delegated to the commander who is able to best access the situation.
The commander can to decide to:
Kill them all (except women and children), as in the case of Bani Qurayzah, because the Blessed Prophet (saw) explicitly forbade the killing of women and children.*
They could ransom them, as in the case of the battle of Badr, or exchange them for Muslim prisoners.
Or they can take them as Ma-Malakat Aymanukum.
It really depends on the context and the assessment of the commander.
*It is narrated by Ibn ‘Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (saw) forbade the killing of women and children.
The first call is not to bring these people in as Ma-Malakat Aymanukum. The following verse demonstrates this:
“So, when you encounter those who disbelieve, then (aim at) smiting the necks, until when you have broken their strength thoroughly, then establish the covenant (or terms). Then choose (to release them) either (as) a favour (shown to them,), or (after receiving) ransom, until the war is over. That (is Our command.) If Allah willed, He would have (Himself) subjected them to retribution, but (Allah ordered you to fight,) so that He may test some of you through some others. And those who are killed in Allah’s way, He will never let their deeds go to waste.” (Qur’an 47:4)
The Muslim commander assesses the situation. If the enemy forces are decimated thoroughly, it is most likely in such a situation that bringing the people in like Ma-Malakat Aymanukum is at that point a mercy to them.
Rather than leave women and children to wonder and roam hoping others would take them in.
“It is not fit for a Prophet that he should take prisoners of war until he has thoroughly subdued the land. You settled with the fleeting gains of this world, while Allah’s aim is the Hereafter. Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 8:67)
This verse was sent down as a rebuke to the companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw). The reason is given in the verse itself: “until he has thoroughly subdued the land,” and “You settled with the fleeting gains of this world.” During the battle of Badr, when the enemy was fleeing, many of the companions started to immediately turn their attention to the war booty. However, they should have subdued their enemy completely. Enemies that you let get away are people who regroup, and you have to face another field of battle.
Not everyone would necessarily want to have extra mouths to feed.
Ma’rur b. Suwaid reported:
I saw Abu Dharr wearing clothes, and the slave wearing similar ones. I asked him about it, and he narrated that he had abused a person during the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger (saw) and he reproached him for his mother. That person came to Allah’s Messenger (saw) and made mention of that to him. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (saw) said: You are a person who has (remnants of) ignorance in him. Your slaves are brothers of yours. Allah has placed them in your hand, and he who has his brother under him, he should feed him with what he eats, and dress him with what he dresses himself, and do not burden them beyond their capacities, and if you burden them, (beyond their capacities), then help them.
Let us think of today’s example of a domestic helper. Not everyone can afford to have a domestic helper even if they want one. Also think of accommodation. We are surprised at all the discussion on this topic. It is not approached from a practical and pragmatic aspect of whether everyone would put their hands up to volunteer to have a slave. Keep in mind, the vast majority of the companions were people who were already under a great deal of duress and many of them were not people of means. It is likely those who took such people were those who handed livestock or fields to tend to. In other words, they saw a practical and pragmatic benefit in taking in and taking care of such people.
The objective of the Muslim man in war.
We also need to bear in mind that the objective of the Muslim man in war is to seek shahada. Why would any Muslim man in their right mind and right state of emaan settle for the paltry gains of this worldly life when the hereafter and all its blessings awaits!
“O believers! Do not be like the unfaithful who say about their brothers who travel throughout the land or engage in battle, “If they had stayed with us, they would not have died or been killed.” Allah makes such thinking a cause of agony in their hearts. It is Allah who gives life and causes death. And Allah is All-Seeing of what you do. Should you be martyred or die in the cause of Allah, then His forgiveness and mercy are far better than whatever ˹wealth˺ those ˹who stay behind˺ accumulate. Whether you die or are martyred—all of you will be gathered before Allah.” (Qur’an 3:156-158)
“Never think of those martyred in the cause of Allah as dead. In fact, they are alive with their Lord, well provided for rejoicing in Allah’s bounties and being delighted for those yet to join them. There will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve.” (Qur’an 3:169-170)
What is ultimately the objective in Islam of having Ma-Malakat Aymanukumfrom wars?
Firstly, Islam and the Muslims would prefer not to have wars to begin with. Let’s establish this.
Secondly, the ultimate objective is the re-integration of such people into society. That is what we need to keep in mind when going forward. Does the Qur’an encourage, allow, or find avenues for this? Does Islam really set about to do this or does it just talk? Let us see.
The Qur’an and the New Testament & TNCH
There is not a single verse in the New Testament encouraging anyone ever to free a slave. Not one.
Jesus, as recorded in the New Testament, had two interactions with slaves. Both of whom he healed. But not once was there a command to set the slave free — which shows, morally speaking, he was quite fine with it as a reality of society.
In fact, Christians have had to turn this Messianic Prophecy into some Christological view about Christ Jesus (as) saving people from sins!
“The spirit of the Lord God was upon me, since the Lord anointed me to bring tidings to the humble, He sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to declare freedom for the captives, and for the prisoners to free from captivity.” (Isaiah 61:1)
Jesus (as) during his ministry (according to the NT) did nothing of the kind. So the captives here must be interpreted as captives to sins.
Christians will often quote the following verse to claim this abolishes slavery.
“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)
This verse says nothing about abolishing slavery. It simply speaks of all being equal in Christ. The proof of that is that this verse has been read down through the ages and Christians had no issues with keeping slaves.
“Slaves, in reverent fear of God, submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.” (1 Peter 2:18)
In fact, in the entire TNCH of Judaism (what Christians call the Old Testament) there were no examples of encouraging the freeing of slaves! What you will find is that if your slave is a Hebrew, he cannot be a slave beyond 6 years, and you must set him free. There is no such law for non-Hebrew people!
“Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free.” (Exodus 21:1-6)
Freeing of slaves was only in relation to their own people.
Then the Holy Trinity (Father, Jesus and The Holy Spirit) commanded:
“When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.” (Deuteronomy 20:10-18)
The Holy Trinity (Father Jesus and The Holy Spirit) did not chide or stop Moses when he stated:
“And Moses said to them, Have you saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that have known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” (Numbers 31:15-18)
Then the Holy Trinity (Father, Jesus and The Holy Spirit) commanded:
“When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.” (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)
Then the Holy Trinity (Father, Jesus and The Holy Spirit) commanded:
“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.” (Leviticus 25: 44-46)
Partus sequitur ventrem or descent-based slavery in Islam, Judaism and Christianity.
What does this mean? In other world views, if a person is born to a slave woman, they too would be born into slavery. This is not the case in Islam. The person born to a slave is a free person. We do not have baby slaves. The first documented recorded example in the history of getting rid of descent-based slavery is in Islam!
Now, what does the Bible (New Testament/TNCH) say in regard to this? Nothing.
ATONE FOR SINS BY FREEING A (RAQAB/NECK) SLAVE.
The first point is what we have already covered in regard to (Qur’an 47:4) above. That is immediate emancipation. Either by a good will gesture, ransom or via prisoner exchange.
Now what we are going to share with you, dear readers, leaves no good options for the haters of Islam.
They will have to admit the (raqab) were not something in abundance among Muslims. Or.
That the Qur’an is a divine revelation as it’s author (Allah), being the All-Knowing, laid out a plan for Muslims to get atonement when no (raqab) would be available: -for example, in the future.
Thie following verses demonstrate that the institution of slavery need not endure.
“Allah will not impose blame upon you for what is meaningless in your oaths, but He will impose blame upon you for [breaking] what you intended of oaths. So its expiation is the feeding of ten poor people from the average of that which you feed your families or clothing them or the liberation of (raqabatin) a slave.” “But if none of this is affordable, then you must fast three days. This is the penalty for breaking your oaths. So be mindful of your oaths. This is how Allah makes things clear to you, so perhaps you will be grateful.”(Qur’an 5:89)
“It is not lawful for a believer to kill another except by mistake. And whoever kills a believer unintentionally must free a believing slave and pay blood-money to the victim’s family—unless they waive it charitably. But if the victim is a believer from a hostile people, then a believing (raqabatin) slave must be freed. And if the victim is from a people bound with you in a treaty, then blood-money must be paid to the family along with freeing a believing slave (raqabatin). Those who are unable, let them fast two consecutive months—as a means of repentance to Allah. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 4:92)
“And those who pronounce thihar from their wives and then [wish to] go back on what they said – then [there must be] the freeing of a slave (raqabatin) before they touch one another. That is what you are admonished thereby; and Allah is Acquainted with what you do.” “But if the husband cannot afford this, let him then fast two consecutive months before the couple touch each other. But if he is unable, then let him feed sixty poor people. This is to re-affirm your faith in Allah and His Messenger. These are the limits set by Allah. And the disbelievers will suffer a painful punishment.” (Qur’an 58:3-4)
Prima Qur’an comments: If you look at the expiation for sin, it is clear from this that Allah (swt) offers several solutions if one is unable to free the neck (of a slave).
Freeing slaves
Freeing slaves along with blood money.
Feeding 60 poor people.
Fasting, depending on the nature of the sin; 3 days or up to 120 days consecutively.
Fasting can only be an option if the person does not have the means to free a neck (slave) or there are simply no slaves (necks) to be freed!
That is to say that freeing a neck (slave) is given priority in terms of expiation of sins!
Zakat — one of the five pillars of Islam and forced tax collection on the Muslim faithful by the Amir is used to set slaves free!
“Zakah expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy and for those employed to collect [zakah] and for bringing hearts together [for Islam] and for freeing captives (l-riqabi) and for those in debt and for the cause of Allah and for the [stranded] traveler – an obligation [imposed] by Allah. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.” (Qur’an 9:60)
Zakah, which comes from an Arabic root word meaning to purify, is one of the five pillars of Islam. In the context of Zakah distribution, it is the purification of one’s wealth. This means that the money that is generated by this forced tax collection is used to free slaves!
There are 8 ahsnaf (beneficiaries of Zakah).
Fakir -One who has no means of livelihood or material possession.
Miskin -One who has insufficient means to sustain their livelihood.
Amil -The person who collects the Zakah, to reward the dutiful.
Muallaf-Assistance for those who recently embraced Islam.
Riqab-Freeing of slaves.
Gharimin-One who is in debt needs assistance to pay off a debt.
Fisabillah-Those who fights in the cause of Allah-or to sustain those who lost bread winners in the war.
Ibnussabil-Those who are travelers or on a journey
At this point, a Muslim should lift his/her head up with pride and say: “Al hamdulillah, I am a Muslim! What other system is there like this in any other faith tradition?”
Islam encourages the freeing of slaves and especially tells us that it is a quick path to righteousness & spiritual elevation.
How will you comprehend what the steep ascent is? It is freeing a slave (raqabatin -a neck) or giving of food at the time of famine to an orphan or near of kin or some needy person in distress.” (Qur’an 90:12-16)
“It is not righteousness that you turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves (l-riqābi) freeing the necks -slaves); to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which you have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah-fearing.” (Qur’an 2:177)
The Qur’an informs us that when it comes to choosing a life partner and whom to continue our lineage with that a believing slave is better than a disbelieving free person.
“And do not marry mushrik women until they believe. And a believing wala-amatun (bondwoman) is better than a mushrik, even though she might please you. And do not marry mushrik men until they believe. And a believing wala-abdun (bondman) is better than a mushrik, even though he might please you. Those invite to the Fire, but Allah invites to Paradise and to forgiveness, by His permission. And He makes clear His verses to the people that perhaps they may remember.” (Qur’an 2:221)
In the scenario above, the slave has a low status before the people.
The free person has a high status before the people.
In both situations, when a believer is to access who to give their son or daughter to for the continuation of their lineage, the believer is always superior to the unbeliever in every scenario. The believing slave is leagues above the unbelieving free person.
The above verse is used by our school, the Ibadi school, as a proof against anyone who states that someone who is Quraysh is, by default, superior to a non-Qurashi. Or, that an Arab is superior to a non-Arab. This verse is definite proof against that position.
Various hadith about slaves
Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama and Marwan:
When the delegates of the tribe of Hawazin came to the Prophet (saw) he stood up amongst the people, Glorified and Praised Allah as He deserved, and said, “Then after: Your brethren have come to you with repentance and I see it logical to return to them their captives; so whoever amongst you likes to do that as a favor, then he can do it, and whoever of you like to stick to his share till we give him his right from the very first Fai (war booty) (1) which Allah will bestow on us, then (he can do so).” The people replied, “We do that (to return the captives) willingly as a favor for your sake.”
Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “He who has a slave-girl and educates and treats her nicely and then manumits and marries her, will get a double reward.”
I came to Ibn ‘Umar when he set his slave free. He took a stick or something else from the earth and said; for me there is no reward even equivalent to this. I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: If anyone slaps or beats his slave the atonement due from him is to set him free.
The Prophet (saw) said, “Allah says, ‘I will be against three persons on the Day of Resurrection: -1. One who makes a covenant in My Name, but he proves treacherous. -2. One who sells a free person (as a slave) and eats the price, -3. And one who employs a laborer and gets the full work done by him but does not pay him his wages.’ “
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying:
None of you should say: My bondman, for all of you are the bondmen of Allah, but say: My young man, and the servant should not say: My Lord, but should say: My chief.
It is also clear from the above hadith that someone who had the status of slave can rise to the ranks of being the commander of the faithful. That is the Amir al-Mu’minin (Commander of the Faithful) of the entirety of all Muslims!
In fact, the above hadith is used by our school; The Ibadi school against the Shi’i and Sunni schools, which state the ruler of the Muslims must only be from the Quraysh (Sunni from any member of Quraysh) and (Shi”i from the Prophet’s lineage which is Quraysh).
Addressing the issue ofMa-Malakat Aymanukum
First, who are the Ma-Malakat Aymanukum?
Recall the definition.
Ma-Malakat Aymanukum (Those whom your right-hand posses /those who you are your oath of protection/You are a custodian over them)
The expression: right-hand posses is an idiom or expression which means those under your authority, custody, care, provision. The right hand is always used as an expression of something noble and good.
“So as for he who is given his record in his right hand, he will say, “Here, read my record!” (Qur’an 69:19)
The Ma-Malakat Aymanukum are never titled as those whom your left-hand posses. As if they were something disposable and ignoble.
They are those who have been taken under the protection of Muslim households (who have the means and capacity to care for them). Not all Muslim households would volunteer for this. So this offered Muslims from different social economic backgrounds an opportunity to receive reward in different ways.
To simply let such people go.
To earn rewards by bringing in these people under the care and provision of a Muslim household.
Also, bear in mind that option 2 was most likely, in many cases, the preferred choice even from the vantage point of those captured. Once your men, husbands, protectors, army have been decimated, where will you go? To whom will you turn to? Also, do keep in mind that Ma-Malakat Aymanukum is not simply women and children as it also includes men.
So let us tackle the first supposed topic of controversy head on.
Can Muslim women /Muslim men rape, molest or sexually exploit their Ma-Malakat Aymanukum against their will?
“Why should you not fight in the cause of Allah when weak men, women, and children are imploring: “Our Lord, deliver us from this community whose people are oppressive, and be You our Lord and Master.” (Qur’an 4:75)
How would this du’a to Allah to send people who deliver them from oppression make sense if Muslims turned around and did the same thing?
“And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquility in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give though.” (Qur’an 30:21)
One of the means by which a Muslim woman may find her future husband or by which a Muslim man may find his future wife is by means of milk al yamin. Is it really to be believed that this Muslim woman or man can now rape or molest his/her milk al yamin without his/her consent and he/she (the victim) will be among those who are filled with affection and mercy for his wife or her husband?
Remember that Allah (swt) has mentioned that this category of people, as believers, are better for our sons and daughters as future partners than disbelievers, who are free people.
“And do not marry mushrik women until they believe. And a believing wala-amatun (bondwoman) is better than a mushrik, even though she might please you. And do not marry mushrik men until they believe. And a believing wala-abdun (bondman) is better than a mushrik, even though he might please you. Those invite to the Fire, but Allāh invites to Paradise and to forgiveness, by His permission. And He makes clear His verses to the people that perhaps they may remember.” (Qur’an 2:221)
What kind of healthy or wholesome relationship does one think will come out of those who suffered abuse?
Even this day, those of us who have married men and women who have been raped or molested by their mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, guardians know the trauma and immense challenge it takes building trust with our partners.
Next point:
Zadhan said:
I came to Ibn ‘Umar when he set his slave free. He took a stick or something else from the earth and said; for me there is no reward even equivalent to this. I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: If anyone slaps or beats his slave (mamluka) the atonement due from him is to set him free.
If you are not to slap or beat your slave, how is that you can force them against their will?
The Qur’an commands Chastity.
“You shall maintain chastity, not committing adultery, nor taking secret lovers.” (Qur’an 5:5)
“Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and guard their chastity. That is purer for them. Surely Allah is All-Aware of what they do.” (Qur’an 24:30)
“As for the one who reverenced the majesty of his Lord, and enjoined the self from sinful lusts. Paradise will be the abode.” (Qur’an 79:40-41)
“Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away, the companion at your side, the traveler, and those whom (malakat aymanukum) your right hands possess. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are stingy and boastful.” (Qur’an 4:36)
Allah (swt) has put the malakat aymankum on the same level, and they should be treated with good as their parents, relatives, orphans, needy, neighbor, traveler, companion and even neighbor not adjacent to you.
Can it be said that if these people are molested against their consent, that they are being treated with good?
“Marry off the singles among you, as well as the righteous of your bondmen and bondwomen(Ibadikum wa-imaikum). If they are poor, Allah will enrich them out of His bounty. For Allah is All-Bountiful, All-Knowing. And let those who do not have the means to marry should (walyyasta’fifi)-show restraint and/or keep themselves chaste until Allah enriches them out of His bounty. And if any of those who your right hand posses (malakat aymanukum) desires a contract, make it possible for them, if you find goodness in them. And give them some of Allah’s wealth which He has granted you. Do not force your girls into prostitution (l-bighai)for your own worldly gains while they wish to remain chaste. And if someone coerces them, then after such a coercion Allah is certainly All-Forgiving, Most Merciful . Indeed, We have sent down to you clear revelations, along with examples of those who had gone before you, and a lesson to the Allah-fearing. (Qur’an 24:32-34)
Prima Qur’ancomments:
1) Allah tells us to marry those who are single among us. As well as marry the bondmen and bondwomen.
2) Those who do not have the means to marry should remain chaste/show restraint. — Not that a Muslim woman can go and rape or molest a man, or that a Muslim man can go and rape and molest a woman. In fact, if they were allowed to do so, there would be no injunction for them to show restraint.
3)If any malakat aymanukum wants to get into a contract to buy their freedom, make it possible for them, in fact give them some of the wealth Allah gave you! (Allah swt is reminding us that, after all, he is the source of all wealth).
4) Do not force your girls into prostitution. If this is done, then Allah forgives this coercion (of the girl), not the one who forces them as some twisted Anti Muslims claim. In fact, if it was fine for them to force them into prostitution, the warning to tell them not to do so when be redundant to begin with.
5) (l-bighai) means more than prostitution it means any type of lewdness. Certainly, having inappropriate relations with someone to whom you are not married constitutes exactly this.
6) You will also see this is why no punishment is meted out to unmarried women from Malakat Aymanukum when we discuss Qur’an 4:25. Because of her social and economic condition, it could be quite challenging to tell if she is being forced to do something because she is doing it of her own volition. This ambiguity in the law is also proof enough that they cannot be coerced into intimacy. As stated, if they were forced the fault is with the one who coerces and not the coerced.
“And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then from those (malakat aymanukum min fatayatikumu l-mu’minati) what your right hands possess that are believers. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people ahlihinna (of their people/family)and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. They should be (muh’sanatin ghayra musafihatin) chaste not those who commit immorality) nor those who take [secret] lovers (akhdanin). But once they are in the sacred bond of marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. This [allowance] is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:25)
Prima Qur’an comments:
1) If you cannot afford to marry free believing women, then you marry those whom your right hand possesses. Due to the social and economic status of free women, it is possible that they may demand a higher dowry, among other things.
2) If they have family or tribe that you, or they know of, then you seek permission from their family or tribe.
3) They should be chaste. One cannot be chaste if it is allowable to be unchaste.
4) They should not have secret lovers.
It should be very clear that these women are not being fondled, molested or raped. Also, the inverse is true; that it should be clear that when Muslim women marry such men that they are not being fondled, molested or raped. Because then they would not be from the category of the chaste; nor are they from those who do not have secret lovers.
By the way, in many cases, in the above scenario, the mahr (the bridal dowry) was to grant her freedom. In other cases, this was not so.
5) But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them there is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. This point is something that is quite phenomenal that many people do not ponder over. Usually, in a society, a person of lower socioeconomic status would be treated as a lesser person than those with higher social economic status. Quran 4:25 goes against that norm.
That is why, in our school, the punishments for adultery and pre-marital sex are meted out like so:
Free Woman/Man that are married =Rajm.
Free Woman/Man that are unmarried =100 lashes.
Slave Woman/Man that are married =50 lashes.
Slave Woman/Man that is unmarried = Taazir.
A tazir punishment is when there is nothing explicit from the Qur’an or Sunnah. It is discretionary. It could be corporeal in nature, it could be harsh words of admonishment.
“Do not force your girls into prostitution (l-bighai)for your own worldly gains while they wish to remain chaste.”
Due to the social and economic condition of this person, it would be very difficult to pin anything on them. Especially in light of the fact that they very well could be forced.
We have not found any cases in the Ibadi school of said individuals (category 4) being punished.
“And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then one or those your right hand possesses (malakat aymanukum). That is more suitable that you may not incline (ta’ulu)-injustice, oppression. And give the women [upon marriage] their [bridal] gifts graciously. But if they give up willingly to you anything of it, then take it in satisfaction and ease.” (Qur’an 4:3-4)
Prima Qur’ancomments:
1) If you fear that you will not do justice when marrying many orphan women, then marry one from among them (malakat aymanukum). In other words, these women from the malakat aymanukum are there for your consideration.
2) Orphan girls here are still free women. They are simply free women that do not have any known family or guardians.
3) Give them (malakat aymanukum)their bridal gift.
And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. (malakat aymanukum)[This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse (muh’sinina ghayra musafihina So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise. (Qur’an 4:24)
If we Muslims were such immoral people, why would we need to be consoled that it is fine to marry women from those whom our right-hand posses that were already married?
In other words, this verse says that those women who are already married to those whom Islam would not recognize the validity of their marriage contract, you can marry them.
Notice that, again, the malakat aymanukum are spoken of in the context of marriage. That beyond them are other women who are lawful to you provided you desire chastity and not unlawful intercourse.
Let us put it like this. We will use the example of the law of the former United States. The former United States has a law that says if a person is married, and then they seek to get married to another individual, this is called bigamy.
So here is the scenario. A married woman in the former United States converts to Islam and seeks a divorce from her husband. The divorce proceedings are taking a long time. In the meantime, this woman does not live with her husband, nor does she receive sustenance or care from him. Over the course of time, she has been made known of an interest in her by a Muslim man. After meeting up with the suitor in the appropriate settings, they decide to marry. The Imam of the Masjid performs the nikah. Technically, this woman is married to her husband (by U.S. law). However, in Islam, the moment she became a Muslim and her husband did not follow suit, that marriage dissolved. They are married in the sight of Allah (swt) and that is what matters. As long as they do not go and try and register their marriage, the wife would be free from the charge of bigamy in U.S. law.*
*Note as Muslims we have to respect the laws of the nations that we reside in.
If we were an Imam in the former United States, we would officiate such a nikah.
“O you who have believed, when the believing women come to you as emigrants, examine them. Allah is most knowing as to their faith. And if you know them to be believers, then do not return them to the disbelievers; they are not lawful [wives] for them, nor are they lawful [husbands] for them. But give the disbelievers what they have spent. And there is no blame upon you if you marry them when you have given them their due compensation. And hold not to marriage bonds with disbelieving women, but ask for what you have spent and let them ask for what they have spent. That is the judgement of Allah ; He judges between you. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.” (Qur’an 60:10)
So it can be asked is it not inherently morally wrong to marry a woman who is already “lawfully” married to another man according to their custom, beliefs or creed?
Notice we said “lawfully” in quotes. That is because who determines what is or is not lawful marriage? Thus, in the above text, a believing woman is indeed married to a disbelieving man according to the laws, customs and beliefs of his society and his people. Thus, she is in adultery in accordance with them. However, Allah (swt) has made that marriage null and void!
In fact, Allah (swt) is being rather magnanimous by ordering: But give the disbelievers what they have spent. When Allah (swt) could have ordered that they receive nothing!
Now we could turn around and ask the Jews and Christians the following: What do you say on these matters? It is easy to talk the talk, but do you walk the walk? So let us give them a scenario.
Let us say a Muslim woman has now converted to Christianity. She wanted to leave a horrible marriage she was in. Her husband would in no way divorce her. This woman left Islam and became a Christian. She flees to the former United States. What is the position of Judaism and Christianity on her matter?
Does she remain single for the rest of her life or does not the law of the land have the power to nullify or make null her marriage? Technically, she is still married to that man and will be until he divorces her (according to the laws of his land).
“O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those (malakat yaminuka) whom your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives] and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who emigrated with you and a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet [and] if the Prophet wishes to marry her, [this is] only for you, excluding the [other] believers. We certainly know what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their wives and those their right hands possess,(malakat aymanuhum) in order that there will be upon you no discomfort. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 33:50)
Daughters of paternal uncles.
Daughters of paternal aunts.
Daughters of maternal uncles
Daughters of maternal aunts.
Any believing woman who gives herself to you. If the Prophet wishes to marry her.
Does anyone believe for a moment that the above verse is saying that if the Blessed Prophet (saw) so wished that he could be intimate with his cousins without being married to them?
In fact, category 5 (any believing woman) is explicitly followed up by the desire to marry her.
Thus, those whom your right hand possesses (malakat yaminuka) are also under these categories. That they are among the women the Blessed Prophet (saw) can marry if he so chooses. As he did so with Safiyah (ra).
“You, [O Muḥammed], may put aside whom you will of them or take to yourself whom you will. And any that you desire of those [wives] from whom you had [temporarily] separated – there is no blame upon you [in returning her]. That is more suitable that they should be content and not grieve and that they should be satisfied with what you have given them – all of them. And Allah knows what is in your hearts. And ever is Allah Knowing and Forbearing.” (Qur’an 33:51)
THE MALAKAT YAMIN BECAME THE ONLY OPTION FOR THE BLESSED PROPHET (SAW).
“Not lawful to you, [O Muḥammed], are [any additional] women after [this], nor [is it] for you to exchange them for [other] wives, even if their beauty were to please you, except what your right hand possesses (malakat yaminuka). And ever is Allah, over all things, an Observer.” (Qur’an 33:52)
“Not lawful to you, [O Muḥammed], are [any additional] women after [this], nor [is it] for you to exchange them for [other] wives, even if their beauty were to please you.”
This directly refutes two major accusations that have been leveled against the Blessed Prophet (saw).
The accusation that he made up the revelation to suit himself.
Him having unrestrained and unchecked desires.
Allah (swt) prohibits the Prophet to: a) Marry more free women. Even if he feels a magnetic pull towards them. b) Divorce any of his current wives.
By means of this verse, they were secured from divorce. Allah (swt) decreed that they would be his wives in this world and in the world to come. The very definition of soul mates!
The only exception or clause is: “(malakat yaminuka).” Those captives seized in war. They are permissible for you to marry.
Verses concerning relaxed dress code around malakat aymanukum
“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard (wayaḥfaẓna) their modesty(furūjahunna); that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or (malakat aymanuhuna (their right hands possess), or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O you Believers! turn you all together towards Allah, that you may attain Bliss.”(Qur’an 24:31)
Except for: their husbands. Their fathers. Their Father-In-Law. Their Sons. Their husbands sons (other marriages). Their brothers, their brother’s sons. Their Sister’s Sons. Other women. Malakat Aymanukum. The male attendants who have no desire: examples: eunuchs or the very old. Children who are unaware or naive.
Prima Qur’an comments: It should be clear that the malakat aymanukum are treated in a sense as family. They are not locked outside the home in some cold barn. They are part and parcel of the family unit, hence why a relaxation in the dress code. It is almost unavoidable at times.
“O you who have believed, let those whom your right hands possess (malakat aymanukum) and those who have not [yet] reached puberty among (yablughu l-huluma (reached puberty) you ask permission of you [before entering] at three times: before the dawn prayer and when you put aside your clothing [for rest] at noon and after the night prayer. [These are] three times of privacy for you. There is no blame upon you nor upon them beyond these [periods], for they continually circulate among you – some of you, among others. Thus does Allah make clear to you the verses; and Allah is Knowing and Wise.” (Qur’an 24:58)
“No blame will be attached to the blind, the lame, the sick. Whether you eat in your own houses, or those of your fathers, your mothers, your brothers, your sisters, your paternal uncles, your paternal aunts, your maternal uncles, your maternal aunts, houses malakat mafatihahu (those of whom you been granted victory), or any of your friends’ houses, you will not be blamed: you will not be blamed whether you eat in company or separately. When you enter any house, greet one another with a greeting of blessing and goodness as enjoined by Allah. This is how Allah makes His messages clear to you so that you may understand.” (Qur’an 24:61)
“Whether you reveal anything, or whether you conceal it, surely Allah has knowledge of everything. There is no blame on the Prophet’s wives if they should appear before their fathers, their sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, their fellow women, and those (malakat aymanuhunna) whom their right hands posses. And be mindful of Allah ˹O wives of the Prophet!˺ Surely Allah is a Witness over all things.” (Qur’an 33:54-55)
“And when the inviolable months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 9:5)
The hands in the cookie jar verses?
These are the two verses which are often misquoted and misunderstood as allowing violation of the malakat aymanukum.
“And those who guard (hafizuna)) their modesty (lifurujihim) except with their wives or those (malakat aymanuhum (they possess rightfully) for then they are free from blame, but whoever seeks beyond that are the transgressors.” (Qur’an 70:29-31)
“And who guard (hafizuna) their modesty (lifurujihim) – Save from their wives or those their right hands possess (malakat aymanuhum), for then they are not blameworthy.” (Qur’an 23:5-6)
Recall the verse:
“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard (wayaḥfaẓna) their modesty(furūjahunna).” (Qur’an 24:31)
hafizuna/wayahfazna & lifurujihim/furjuahunna
These two verses, Qur’an 70:29-31 & Qur’an 23:5-6 likewise speak in the same manner. These verses are not about sex.
They are about guarding modesty. The phrase “except with their wives or those their right hands possess” simply defines the boundaries of what is modest — not permission for sexual activity outside of marriage.
In other words, those verses tell a man what is permissible to look at or be uncovered around, not what he may do sexually. To read them as blanket permission for intercourse without marriage is to confuse the category of modesty with the category of sexual relations.
This becomes reinforced with the following verse:
“Tell the believing men to reduce [some] of their vision and guard (wayaḥfaẓū) their private parts (furūjahum). That is purer for them. Indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what they do.” (Qur’an 24:30)
Now have you ever heard anyone argue that in Qur’an 24:31 that women can molest and rape their male servants?
Read again the above verse:
“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard (wayaḥfaẓna) their modesty(furūjahunna); that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or (malakat aymanuhuna (their right hands possess), or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O you Believers! turn you all together towards Allah, that you may attain Bliss.”(Qur’an 24:31)
However, if one wants to have sexual access to their malakat aymanukum, the following verses tell us how this is done:
We get here through marriage to the (malakat aymanuhum)
And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then from those (malakat aymanukum min fatayatikumu l-mu’minati) what your right hands possess that are believers. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people ahlihinna (of their people/family)and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. They should be (muh’sanatin ghayra musafihatin) chaste not those who commit immorality) nor those who take [secret] lovers (akhdanin).” (Qur’an 4:25)
“But if you fear that you will not be just, then one or those your right hand possesses (malakat aymanukum). That is more suitable that you may not incline (ta’ulu)-injustice, oppression. And give the women [upon marriage] their [bridal] gifts graciously.” (Qur’an 4:3-4)
We think most people have no idea how simple a nikah really truly is in Islam. Why would any Muslim, much less the Blessed Prophet (saw) rush to the questionable when the established and good is so easy to do and accessible?
What is the status of humanity before Allah?
“O humanity! Indeed, We created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you may know one another. Surely the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous among you. Allah is truly All-Knowing, All-Aware.” (Qur’an 49:13)
Narrated AbuHurayrah:
“The Prophet (saw) said: Allah, Most High, has removed from you the pride of the pre-Islamic period and its boasting in ancestors. One is only a pious believer or a miserable sinner. You are sons of Adam, and Adam came from dust. Let the people cease to boast about their ancestors. They are merely fuel in Jahannam; or they will certainly be of less account with Allah than the beetle which rolls dung with its nose.”
There were three classes of people when Islam was seeking to be established:
In regard to freedom of movement, there were three social classes of people when Islam was seeking to be established. Free Person Milk Al Yamin -from wars. Raqib (slave) -from the non Muslims. We should clarify that this also does mean Muslims who had slaves prior to embracing Islam.
In regard to freedom of movement, there were two classes of people when Islam was established.
Free Person Milk Al Yamin-from wars against Muslims. (If no wars =no Milk Al Yamin)
Muslims can marry the following:
1) Can marry a free Muslim- (open to men and women) 2) Can marry a Jew or a Christian (under Islamic governance) — open only to men. 3) Can marry the believer from the milk-al-yamin -open to men and women.
Will this system ever come back?
Some people think certain injunctions and guidelines in the Islamic legal code are outdated. We say there is absolutely nothing in the Islamic legal code that is outdated or redundant. It is there when needed.
Some people have this idea that Earth will become a utopia in the near future. We have eliminated racism, tribalism, bigotry, hate, poverty, illiteracy, disease. We colonize Mars, Ceres and one day meet a galaxy spanning alien civilization. MAYBE.
Maybe not.
If you look at what holds a society together, it is basically these five things: access to food, access to drinking water, access to medical treatment, a stable government, A military/police force to enforce laws.
Now if you just take away two of these five things — you can pick any two, and you will see the most so-called civilized country become Mad Max in very little time. People take stable, cohesive government for granted. The reality is what we call ‘civilization’ hangs on a very delicate thread.
We have already shown in Qur’an 5:89 and Qur’an 4:92 and Qur’an 58:3-4 where Allah (swt) anticipates a society or periods of time in human civilization in which there will be no slavery.
However, in case the current order breaks down we would rather have laws on the books that can be utilized when needed than not have that guidance at all.
Five times a day throughout the world there is a beautiful call that goes out. Hayya Al Salah -Come To the Prayer. Hayya Al Falah -Come to Success. This beautiful call was first delivered by a freed slave of Ethiopia. He is one of the most blessed and treasured companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw). His name was Bilal ibn Rabah (ra). The first muezzin.
“O you who have believed, eat from the good things which We have provided for you and be grateful to Allah if it is [indeed] Him that you worship.” (Qur’an 2: 172)
﷽
“‘Abū’ Ubayda reported, according to Jābir ‘Ibn Zayd, after ‘Anas’ Ibn Mālik, that the Prophet (saw) had allowed the people of the tribe to ‘Urayna to drink both the urine and the milk of camels and other cattle, if necessary.” (1)
1 ) Manuscript having said in case of necessity, does not exist in the copy of AlQuṭb.
One of our respected teachers, Shaykh Abu Hamed Al Sawafi (h) has said the following:
“One of the established principles in our pure religion (Hanifiyyah) is the preservation of the five necessities: religion, life, intellect, honor/lineage, and property.”
Allah has explicitly stated in His Book: “O you who have believed, eat from the good things which We have provided for you and be grateful to Allah if it is [indeed] Him that you worship.”(Qur’an 2: 172)
And He described His Messenger (saw)in the following way:
“He commands them to do good and forbids them from evil, permits for them what is lawful and forbids to them what is impure, and relieves them from their burdens and the shackles that bound them.” (Qur’an 7:157)
It is not hidden from any rational person that the urine of animals — including camel urine — is inherently impure (khabith) and harmful to the one who drinks it. Accordingly, drinking urine is forbidden, whether it is camel urine or the urine of any other animal.
It is true that some narrations have come regarding the drinking of camel urine, but they do not rise above the level of conjecture (dhann). Therefore, it is not appropriate to rely upon them.
In any case, whoever insists on acting upon those hadiths should first verify with medical specialists and through laboratory testing. If it is proven that camel urine is harmful to health, then it is not permissible to consume it. But if it is medically established as a valid treatment, then there is no harm in it.
If camel urine were truly a cure for bodily diseases, doctors and pharmaceutical companies around the world would have rushed to it.
That is the end of the response from respected Shaykh on this matter.
What the hadith does and does not state.
There is no hadith that we (Ibadi) rely upon to say that this is mandated or prescribed by the Blessed Prophet (saw) for the generality of the Muslims.
There is no hadith that we (Ibadi) have that says the Blessed Prophet (saw) ever drank urine of any kind.
This particular hadith comes down with a variation in wording. This variation cast doubt on rather it was a command or recommendation.
The Sunni hadith corpus has the following in relation to the matter.
Narrated Anas:
The climate of Medina did not suit some people, so the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered them to follow his shepherd, i.e. his camels, and drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they followed the shepherd that is the camels and drank their milk and urine till their bodies became healthy. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. When the news reached the Prophet (ﷺ) he sent some people in their pursuit. When they were brought, he cut their hands and feet and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron.
A group of eight men from the tribe of ‘Ukil came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, “O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! Provide us with some milk.” Allah’s Apostle said, “I recommend that you should join the herd of camels.”So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after whey were Muslims. When the Prophet (ﷺ) was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died (Abu Qilaba, a sub-narrator said, “They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land.”)
I embraced Islam and my (ignorance of the) religion made me anxious (to learn the essentials). I came to Abu Dharr. Abu Dharr said: The climate of Medina did not suit me. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) ordered me to have a few camels and goats. He said to me: Drink their milk. (The narrator Hammad said): I doubt whether he (the Prophet) said: “their urine.” Abu Dharr said: I was away from the watering place and I had my family with me. I would have sexual defilement and pray without purification. I came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) at noon. He was resting in the shade of the mosque along with a group of Companions. He (the Prophet) said: Abu Dharr. I said: Yes, I am ruined, Messenger of Allah. He said: What ruined you ? I said: I was away from the watering place and I had family with me. I used to be sexually defiled and pray without purification. He commanded (to bring) water for me. Then a black slave-girl brought a vessel of water that was shaking as the vessel was not full. I concealed myself behind a camel and took bath and them came (to the Prophet). The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Abu Dharr, clean earth is a means of ablution, even if you do not find water for ten years. When you find water, you should make it touch your skin.
Abu Dawud said: This is transmitted by Hammad b. Zaid from Ayyub. This version does not mention the words “their urine.” This is not correct. The words “their urine” occur only in the version reported by Anas and transmitted only by the people of Basrah.
In our (Ibadi) hadith collection there is no mention at all of this tribe killing the shepherd or any subsequent punishment.
What is interesting is that in the second hadith in Bukhari it states: So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Which means they did this of their own accord and the Blessed Prophet (saw) di dnot order it. Also the statement: they became healthy and fat, is the comment of the narrator and not an observation of the Prophet (saw).
The hadith recorded in Abu Dawud also shows doubt.
Lastly, even if it was established as a recommendation from the Blessed Prophet (saw) that would have been in his capacity as a human being.
This is explained by Dr. Shaykh Kahlan bin Nabhan al Kharusi (h) in our article here:
Some people have used this as a polemic against Islam and Muslims. This usually comes from Hindus because Muslims themselves have unwisely attacked rituals where Hindus have bathed in urine and cow faeces.
Some Christians too have used this as a polemic against Islam.
You do have in the Bible where God commands Ezekiel to use human faeces as fuel to cook his food. He wants Ezekiel to this openly but Ezekiel refuses.
“Eat the food as you would a loaf of barley bread; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for fuel.” The Lord said, “In this way the people of Israel will eat defiled food among the nations where I will drive them.” Then I said, “Not so, Sovereign Lord! I have never defiled myself. From my youth until now I have never eaten anything found dead or torn by wild animals. No impure meat has ever entered my mouth.” “Very well,” he said, “I will let you bake your bread over cow dung instead of human excrement.” (Ezekiel 4:12-15)
In this bizarre text God is commanding Ezekiel to bake bread using human faeces and to do so openly.
Ezekiel seems repulsed by God’s suggestion and reminds God that he has never eaten anything unclean. In a compromise God basically says to Ezekiel: “Very well you can use cow faeces instead.”
“Indeed, Allah showers His blessings upon the Prophet, and His angels pray for him. O believers! Invoke Allah’s blessings upon him, and salute him with worthy greetings of peace.” (Qur’an 33:56)
﷽
This article aims to tell the reader about the Tashahhud in the Ibadi school as well as the proper meaning about Āl Ibrahim and Āl Muhammed (peace be upon them both)
The Āl in the Tashahhud is a reference to the people of Ibrahim (as) and the people of Muhammed (saw). This is inclusive of the familes but is not exclusive to them. This is important.
The Āl cannot be excluisve to the families for the following reason:
“Ibrāhīm’s plea for his father’s forgiveness was only because of a promise he had made. But when it became clear that his father was an enemy of Allah, he disassociated from him. Indeed, Ibrāhīm was tender-hearted and forbearing.” (Qur’an 9:114)
Likewise the uncle of the Blessed Prophet (saw), Abu Lahab was condemned and destined for Hellfire, as in the Qurān.
“”May the hands of Abu Lahab perish, and he perish! Neither his wealth nor gains will benefit him. He will burn in a flaming fire, and his wife, the carrier of kindling around her neck will be a rope palm fibre.” (Qur’an 111:1-5)
As regard the status of the uncle Abu Talib and Parents of the Blessed Prophet (saw) their status is disputed.
Thus The Āl is a reference to the followers of the Blessed Prophets Ibrahim (as) and Muhammed (saw).
Āl simply means people. Āl Kitab the People of the Book. Not the Family of the Book.
“And then he went to his people, swaggering [in pride]. (Qur’an 75:33)
Another example:
“The Fire, they are exposed to it morning and evening. And the Day the Hour appears [it will be said], “Make the people of Pharaoh (ala fir’awna)enter the severest punishment.” (Qur’an 40:46)
You can see how the following have translated (with 7 translators translating al as family)
ahlihi -his family, or his people. So we can read the prayer as:
“Say: ‘O Allah exalt the mention of Muhammed and the people of Muhammed as you exalted the mention of Ibrahim. And bless Muhammed and the people of Muhammed as you blessed Ibrahim and the people of Ibrahim in all the Worlds. You are the Praised, the Glorified.”
Here the very straight forward meaning would be the Muslims in general.
That is to say is a general prayer asking one to send blessings upon the Muslims of the people of Ibrahim (as) and the Muslims of the people of Muhammed (saw) be they of their families or not of their families.
Certainly, the Āl cannot be asking for blessings exclusively upon families as we have mentioned above.
It is very clear that the father of Ibrahim (as) is missed by such an invocation for example.
Or even the descendants of Ibrahim (as) that were evil doers, for example.
“And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain commands, which he fulfilled: He said: “I will make thee an Imam to the Nations.” He pleaded: “And also (Imams) from my offspring!” He answered: “But My Promise is not within the reach of evil-doers.” (Qur’an 2: 124)
This is the very clear understanding.
Another point of consideration.
Let us take a closer look at the innovation:
“”Say: ‘Oh Allah, exalt the mention of Muhammed, and the family of Muhammed as you exalted the mention of Ibrahim. And Bless Muhammed and the family of Muhammed as you Blessed Ibrahim and the family of Ibrahim in all the Worlds. You are the Praised, the Glorified.”
If Muhammed (saw) is already a descendant of Ibrahim (as) this du’a is redundant.
The Blessed Prophet (saw) is already blessed -being included in Ibrahim’s family lineage.
This strengthens a view that the du’a is a general du’a of the people of Muhammed (saw), inclusive of any of his family, followers or descendants that held fast to the Qur’an and the example of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Here are some examples of how the Tashah-hud looked in the early Muslim community.
They (the Companions of the Holy Prophet) said: Apostle of Allah, how should we bless you? He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Say:” O Allah! bless Muhammed, his wives and his offspring as You did bless Ibrahim, and grant favours to Muhammed, and his wives and his offspring as You did grant favours to the family of Ibrahim; You are the Praiseworthy and Glorious.”
Allah’s Messenger (saw) taught me the Tashah-hud as he taught me a Sura from the Qur’an, while my hand was between his hands. (Tashah-hud was) all the best compliments and the prayers and the good things are for Allah. Peace and Allah’s Mercy and Blessings be on you, O Prophet! Peace be on us and on the pious slaves of Allah, I testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and I also testify that Muhammed is Allah’s slave and His Apostle. (We used to recite this in the prayer) during the lifetime of the Prophet (saw) , but when he had died, we used to say, “Peace be on the Prophet.”
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Urwa ibn az- Zubayr from Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abd al-Qari that he heard Umar ibn al- Khattab say, while he was teaching people the tashahhud from the mimbar, “Say, Greetings belong to Allah. Pure actions belong to Allah. Good words and prayers belong to Allah. Peace on you, Prophet, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Peace be upon us and on the slaves of Allah who are salihun. I testify that there is no god except Allah. And I testify that Muhammed is His slave and His messenger.”
‘At-tahiyatu lillah, az-zakiyatu lillah, at-tayibatu wa’s-salawatu lillah. As-salamu alayka ayyuha’nnabiyyu wa rahmatu’llahi wa barakatuhu. As-salamu alayna wa ala ibadi’llahi s-salihin. Ash-hadu an la ilaha illa ‘llah wa ash-hadu anna Muhammadan abduhu wa rasuluh.”
Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar used to say the tashahhud saying, “In the name of Allah. Greetings belong to Allah. Prayers belong to Allah. Pure actions belong to Allah. Peace be on the Prophet and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Peace be on us and on the slaves of Allah who are salihun. I testify that there is no god except Allah. I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”
“Bismillah, at-tahiyatu lillah, as-salawatu lillah, az-zakiyatu lillah. As-salamu ala’n-nabiyyi wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu. As-salamu alayna wa ala ibadi’llahi’s-salihin. Shahidtu an la ilaha illallah. Shahidtu anna Muhammadu’r-rasulu’llah.”
He used to say this after the first two rakas and he would make supplication with whatever seemed fit to him when the tashahhud was completed. When he sat at the end of the prayer, he did the tashahhud in a similar manner, except that after the tashahhud he made supplication with whatever seemed fit to him. When he had completed the tashahhud and intended to say the taslim, he said, “Peace be on the Prophet and His mercy and blessings. Peace be upon us and on the slaves of Allah who are salihun.“
“As- salamu ala’n-nabiyyi wa rahmatu’llahi wa barakatuhu. As-salamu alayna wa ala ibadi’llahi’ssalihin .”
He then said, “Peace be upon you” to his right, and would return the greeting to the imam, and if anyone said “Peace be upon you” from his left he would return the greeting to him.
There is a great deal of information that has been kept from the public in regard to this subject.
الإمام مالك بن أنس إمام دار الهجرة:
ينقل لنا بأسانيد ذهبية صحيحة صيغة “التشهد في الصلاة” على لسان: الفاروق عمر بن الخطاب، وابنه الفقيه عبدالله بن عمر بن الخطاب، وأم المؤمنين عائشة.
وكلها ليس فيها ما تعلمناه منذ الصغر: (اللهم صلي على محمد “وعلى آل محمد” كما صليت على إبراهيم ….).
يقول النووي: (ولنا -يعني عند الشافعية- وجهٌ (شاذ) أنه يجب الصلاة على ” الآل ” وليس بشيء).
Imam Malik bin Anas, Imam of the House of Migration: He transmits to us, with authentic golden chains of transmission, the formula for “testifying in prayer” on the tongues of: Al-Farouq Umar ibn Al-Khattab (ra), his son, the jurist Abdullah bin Omar bin Al-Khattab, and the Mother of the Believers Aisha (ra). None of them contain what we learned from childhood: (O Allah, bless Muhammed and the family of Muhammed as you blessed Abraham ….) . Al-Nawawi says: (We – meaning the Shafi’is – have an (odd) view that it is obligatory to pray for the “family” and that is nothing).
ننقل الآن قول الأحناف والأمر كما ترون أيضاً ليس في التشهد عند الأحناف أي ذكر للـ “آل”.
We will now quote the Hanafi view, and the matter is as you can see. The Hanafi view also does not mention the “Al” in the testimony of faith.
In an Ibadi fiqh book on prayer published in the English language we find on page 271 the following:
Source: (The Reliable Jurisprudence of Prayer (Al -Mu’tamad fi’ Fiqh as-Salah -written by al-Mu’tasim b. Sa’id al-Ma’wali. page 271)
So we reached out ot Shaykh al-Mu’tasim about this. And his reply was the following:
“Regarding the issue at hand, you made a valid point: the correct understanding is that the Prophet’s Āl are his followers. If it is exclusive to his blood relatives, then the term would include the likes of Abū Jahl, the Prophet’s uncle, who was condemned and destined for Hellfire, as in the Qurān. This is the outweighing opinion on the issue.”
We as Ibadi follow the wording in Mudawwana of Abu Ghanim al-Khorasani (a prominent early Ibadi jurist).
The text translated into English states:
Chapter on the Tashahhud and what comes after it
You recite (1) when you sit for every two rak’ahs: “All greetings, blessings, and good prayers are due to Allah. Peace be upon you, O Prophet, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Peace be upon us and upon the righteous servants of Allah. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, alone, without any partner, and I bear witness that Muhammed is His servant and His Messenger.” [Abu ‘Ubaydah said, according to what was narrated (2): Then you make a supplication [silently] (3) after the fourth rak’ah, after this tashahhud, whatever you wish, and whatever is appropriate (4).]
Abu al-Umurrij said: Abu ‘Abdih said: This is the tashahhud of ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud (5). He said: ‘Abdullah bin ‘Isa recited it (6) (as): “All greetings, blessings, and good prayers are due to Allah. Peace be upon the Prophet and the mercy of Allah and His blessings, and peace be upon us and upon the righteous servants of Allah. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, alone, without any partner, and that Muhammed is His servant and His Messenger.” (8)
Ibn ‘Abbas said: We used to say “Peace be upon you, O Prophet” when he was still alive among us. But when the Prophet ﷺ passed away, we said “Peace be upon the Prophet and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.” (9)
Footnotes from the original text:
(1) In ‘A and S: “And the tashahhud from.” (2) Addition from ‘A. (3) Addition from ‘A. (4) The editor said: His statement “after the fourth rak’ah,” etc. This is after the second rak’ah in the Fajr prayer, and after the third in Maghrib. Had he said “after completing the tashahhud” it would have included all cases, and there is no requirement for silence in what is added beyond the tashahhud. (5) The phrase “Abu al-Mu’arrij said: Abu ‘Ubaydah said: This is the tashahhud of ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud” is missing from ‘A and S. (6) In ‘A and S: “And he said: ‘Abdullah bin ‘Isa recited.” (7) The editor said: His statement “His servant and His Messenger” is the end of the tashahhud. Whoever believes that the phrase “and what he brought is the truth, etc.” is part of the prayer, his prayer is feared to be invalid, except according to those who hold that the tashahhud is not obligatory. (8) In the original and T: “idha” (when/if), but what we have confirmed from ‘A, S, and B. (9) In ‘A and S: “So when.”
You will find some interesting points about the above.
The chain of transmission (isnad): The names mentioned (Abu ‘Ubaydah, ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud, ‘Abdullah bin ‘Isa) are key figures in early Ibadi legal tradition. Abu Ghanim’s Mudawwana is a foundational text for the Ibadi school, comparable in some ways to the Mudawwana of Sahnun in the Maliki school, though the Ibadi work is more focused on hadith and reports from early authorities.
The tashahhud wording: The Ibadi school is known for preferring the tashahhud attributed to Ibn Mas’ud (as opposed to the versions attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas or others that became more common in Sunni practice). The variant reading noted—”al-salam ‘ala al-nabi” (peace be upon the Prophet) rather than “‘alayka ayyuha al-nabi” (peace be upon you, O Prophet)—reflects the well-attested position that the latter formulation was appropriate only during the Prophet’s lifetime.
Editorial commentary: The footnotes (marked as “qala al-murattib” or “the editor said”) likely come from later Ibadi scholars who transmitted and commented on Abu Ghanim’s work. Their concern about additions to the tashahhud (footnote 7) reflects intra-madhab debates about what constitutes a valid prayer.
The instruction on silent supplication: The direction to supplicate silently after the fourth rak’ah (with the parenthetical noting application to Fajr and Maghrib) is characteristic of the detailed procedural guidance found in Ibadi fiqh manuals.
You will note that the earliest Ibadi formula matches what we find in the Qur’an here:
“Indeed, Allah showers His blessings upon the Prophet, and His angels pray for him. O believers! Invoke Allah’s blessings upon him, and salute him with worthy greetings of peace.” (Qur’an 33:56)
In fact there is no prayers upon Ibrahim and his Āl .
During the Shiaf’ication of Sunnism during the Abbasid era the Āl became exclusive to the family of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
For about a century, from 945 to 1055, the Abbasid Caliphs in Baghdad were effectively puppets of the Buyid dynasty.
A Shi’a “Protectorate”: The Buyids were a powerful Shi’i dynasty from Iran. They kept the Abbasid Caliph as a figurehead to appease the majority Sunni population. While they held the real political and military power. It is likely that the transformation of Āl was influenced by them. Allah knows best.
“Your Lord is best aware of what is in your hearts. If you are righteous, He will indeed forgive those who relent and revert.” (Qur’an 17:25)
May Allah (swt) help the Ummah to purify the community from Bid’ah.
May Allah (swt) forgive our scholars who are not free from error.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
“And give full measure when you measure out, and weigh with a true balance; this is fair and better in the end.” (Qur’an 17:35)
﷽
The Asymmetry No One Talks About
When Christian apologists attack the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw), they have an enormous body of material to work with. They cite the sīrah (biography), the ḥadīth (sayings and actions), and the maghāzī (campaign literature). From his first revelation at age 40 to his death at approximately 63, that is roughly 23 years of public prophetic activity. Even if one includes his life before prophethood, from age 25 (his first marriage to Khadījah-ra) to 40, that adds another 15 years of documented context. In total, critics have 35+ years of recorded material to analyze, critique, and polemicize.
But what about Jesus?
Most Christians have never stopped to ask a simple question: How many actual words attributed to Jesus are even in the New Testament? And more importantly: How much of Jesus’s life is actually recorded?
This article is not an argument for Islam. It is an argument for intellectual honesty. The comparison Christian apologists make between Jesus(as) and Muhammed (saw) is not balanced — not because Islam/Christianity is true/false, but because the evidentiary basis for each figure is radically different.
The Raw Data – How Many Words of Jesus Actually Exist?
According to a detailed analysis from synopticgospel.com, the total number of words attributed to Jesus Christ in the four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) is 31,426.
But that number includes duplicate material. The same speeches and parables appear in multiple Gospels. Once you exclude the duplication of Jesus’s speeches across the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), the total unique words drop significantly.
If you enter 31,426 words into a standard “Convert Words to Minutes” speech calculator, you find that it would take approximately 242 minutes — or about 4 hours — to read all of Jesus’s words aloud.
That is the sum total. Four hours of reading. That is everything Jesus is recorded as saying in the four Gospels.
Beyond the Gospels – Jesus’s Words in the Rest of the New Testament
Most Christians assume the Gospels are where Jesus speaks. That is correct. But what about the rest of the 27-book New Testament canon (the one accepted by Latin Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and most Protestants)?
Here is the complete inventory of words attributed to Jesus outside the four Gospels.
Acts of the Apostles
Acts 1:4-8 – The risen Jesus commands the apostles to wait for the Holy Spirit.
Acts 9:4-16 – Jesus appears to Saul (Paul) on the road to Damascus: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” and subsequent instructions to Ananias.
Acts 11:16 – Peter recalls Jesus’s words: “John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 18:9-10 – Jesus speaks to Paul in a vision at Corinth: “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking… I am with you.”
Acts 20:35 – Paul recalls a saying of Jesus not found in the Gospels: “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”
Acts 22:7-10 – Paul’s retelling of the Damascus road experience.
Acts 22:18-21 – Jesus tells Paul to leave Jerusalem: “Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.”
Acts 23:11 – Jesus stands by Paul: “Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.”
Acts 26:14-18 – Paul’s third retelling, with additional detail: “It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”
1 Corinthians
1 Corinthians 11:24-25 – The institution of the Eucharist: “This is my body… This cup is the new covenant in my blood.”
2 Corinthians
2 Corinthians 12:9 – A saying of Jesus to Paul: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”
Revelation
Revelation 1–3 – The risen Christ speaks to the seven churches: “I am the Alpha and the Omega… Write to the angel of the church in Ephesus…” (approximately 20-30 verses of direct speech).
The Rest – Complete Silence
The following New Testament books contain zero direct words attributed to Jesus:
Romans
Galatians
Colossians
Ephesians
Philippians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
That is 19 books out of 27 with absolutely no direct quotation of Jesus.
The 27-Book Canon – A Closer Look
It is worth remembering that the 27-book New Testament was not the only canon in early Christianity. There were rival Christian communities with 22-book New Testaments and others with 35-book New Testaments. The canon we have today is the result of debates, disputes, and eventual ecclesiastical decisions.
But even granting the 27-book canon as authoritative, the fact remains:
Only 8 books contain any direct words of Jesus: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, and Revelation.
19 books (70% of the New Testament by book count) have no words of Jesus in them at all.
Most Christians never stop to think about this. They assume the New Testament is full of Jesus speaking. In reality, the vast majority of the New Testament is written about Jesus — not by him, and not quoting him.
The 90% Problem – Jesus Lived 33 Years. We Have 3.
According to Luke 3:23, Jesus began his public ministry when he was “about thirty years old.” Traditional dating places his birth at approximately 4 BC and his crucifixion around AD 30 or 33. That gives him a lifespan of roughly 33 years.
His public ministry — the period from which we have any recorded words at all — lasted approximately 3 years.
3 years out of 33 = approximately 9% of his life.
That means 91% of Jesus’s life is completely silent in the New Testament.
From birth to age 12: one brief episode in the temple (Luke 2:41-52).
From age 12 to age 30: absolute silence. Nothing. No words. No actions. No teachings.
From age 30 to 33: roughly 4 hours of unique sayings (after excluding Synoptic duplicates).
Think about that. God incarnate, according to Christian theology, walked the earth for 33 years. The Christian record gives us only a handful of episodes from a 3-year window. The rest is silence.
Christian theology has an answer for this: the “hidden years” demonstrate Jesus’s full humanity, his ordinary life, his obedience. But that answer does not solve the historical or polemical problem. It simply explains why the silence is theologically acceptable.
For the purpose of comparing Jesus (as) to Muhammed (saw), the silence is not a theological virtue. It is an evidentiary void.
Age and Life Experience: The Unasked Question
There is another layer to this asymmetry that is almost never discussed: age. Jesus (as) died at approximately 33 years old. Muhammed (saw) died at approximately 63 years old. That is a 30-year difference. A full generation.
Now ask yourself: If Jesus had lived to 63 — if his public ministry had continued for another three decades beyond the brief three years recorded in the Gospels — how much more material would the New Testament contain? How many more sermons? How many more parables? How many more interactions with political authorities, with families, with enemies, with disciples who failed him? How many more decisions under pressure, more moments of moral complexity, more spoken words?
We cannot know, of course. The New Testament does not tell us. But that is precisely the point.
The Christian apologist who contrasts 23 years of prophetic activity (or 35+ years of documented adult life) with Jesus’s 3 years of public ministry is not comparing like with like. They are comparing a life cut short in its early thirties — a life whose longest documented period is measured in hours of speech — with a life that spanned more than six decades and produced enough literature to fill multiple volumes of hadith, sīrah, and tafsīr.
It is entirely possible that a 63-year-old Jesus would have said and done things that a 33-year-old Jesus did not. Perhaps he would have married. Perhaps he would have wielded political power. Perhaps he would have led what looked like military campaigns. Perhaps he would have said more things that later generations found morally uncomfortable. More so even than what we find today. We will never know. Because the claim is he died young. And the Gospels, as they exist, give us almost nothing from the first 30 years of his life and only a sliver from his final three.
To pretend that the silence of the New Testament is a moral or theological victory for Christianity — is to mistake absence of evidence for evidence of moral superiority. That is not scholarship. That is polemics dressed up as piety.
4 Hours vs. 35 Years – The Evidentiary Chasm
Now let us put the two figures side by side.
The data
Jesus (canonical NT)
Muhammed (sīrah, ḥadīth, maghāzī)
Public prophetic ministry
~3 years
~23 years (610-632 CE)
Total documented life
~9% (3 of 33 years)
~100% of prophetic period
Unique spoken words
~4 hours of reading aloud possibly 2 hours without repetitions from the synoptics.
Hundreds of thousands of ḥadīth (of various grades of authenticity)
Narrow: rural Galilee, Jerusalem, Roman occupation
Broad: Medinan state, marraiges, diplomacy, law, economics, community governance
When Christian apologists attack the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw), they have an enormous dataset. They can point to specific battles, specific marriages, specific political decisions, specific legal rulings, and specific moments of apparent moral failure — all dated, documented, and debated within Islamic tradition itself.
When Muslims (or anyone) try to respond symmetrically, they cannot. Not because Jesus was morally superior/inferior, but because the New Testament gives us almost nothing to work with outside a handful of sayings and a short public ministry.
The Christian Apologist’s Blind Spot
Here is the uncomfortable question this raises:
If your case against Muhammed (saw) depends on comparing his documented actions to Jesus’s silence, are you truly making a fair argument?
The Christian apologist will often say: “Jesus never married multiple women. Jesus never led raids. Jesus never owned slaves. Jesus never wielded political power.”
All of that is true — if we limit ourselves to the 3 years and 4 hours of material we have.
But the apologist rarely adds the necessary caveat: “And we have almost no information about what Jesus did or said for the other 30 years of his life.”
The comparison is not between two equally documented figures. It is between:
A man with 35+ years of dense, varied, politically and militarily detailed documentation (Muhammed), and
A man whose recorded words can be read aloud in an afternoon, and whose entire public ministry fits into a 3-year window (Jesus).
That is not a level playing field. It is not a fair comparison. And the Christian apologist who pretends it is has either not thought about the asymmetry or is deliberately ignoring it.
Conclusion – Not a Win, Just an Asymmetry
This article is not arguing that Christianity is false. It is not arguing that Islam is true. It is not even arguing that the Blessed Prophet Muhammwd was a better or worse prophet than Jesus.
It is arguing something much simpler — and much more uncomfortable for the Christian polemicist:
You cannot build a fair case against Muhammed (saw) by relying on a Jesus who barely speaks.
The New Testament is 90% silent about Jesus’s life. He spoke for approximately 4 hours of unique material over a 3-year public ministry. The rest of his 33 years are a blank slate.
The Islamic sources for the life of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) are vastly more detailed, more diverse, and more extensive. That gives the Christian apologist more material. It gives them more material because there is simply more material.
If the Gospels had recorded Jesus from age 12 to 30 — his words, his actions, his relationships, his work, his political views, his family life — the Christian polemic against the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) might look very different. Or it might collapse entirely. We will never know.
Because the New Testament is silent.
And that silence is not the Christian apologist’s ace in the hole. It is the very thing that makes the comparison impossible from the start.
A Note to Christian Readers
If you are a Christian reading this and feeling defensive, ask yourself honestly:
Would you want your case for Jesus to rest on a comparison with the Prophet Muhammed (saw) that requires ignoring 30 years of Jesus’s life and the thinness of the Gospel record?
Or would you rather admit: “We don’t have much from Jesus outside a short ministry. That doesn’t prove Christianity false. But it does mean comparing him to Muhammed (saw) on deeds and sayings is apples to oranges.”
That is all this article asks. Honesty about the data. Just a recognition that the scales are not balanced — and they never were.
May Allah Guide the Jews and the Chrisitians to the truth!
“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 until 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.
Prima Quran 