May 27, 2026 · 2:13 am

The evidence to reject the virgin birth of Jesus.

“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can God have a child, when He did not have a wife?” (Qur’an 6:101) 

“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion” (Qur’an 6:101)  

﷽ 

Ultimately the rejection of the Virgin birth of Christ Jesus is not due to any plain reading of the Qur’an. It is due to aprior belief that some how miracles violate laws of causality. 

Muhammed Asad was of this view. Notice how he deals with the text of the Qur’an that talks about Jesus creating the clay birds.

“And [will make him] an apostle unto the children of Israel.” “I have come unto you with a message from your Sustainer. I shall create for you out of clay, as it were, the shape of [your] destiny, and then breathe into it, so that it might become [your] destiny by God’s leave; and I shall heal the blind and the leper, and bring the dead back to life by God’s leave; and I shall let you know what you may eat and what you should store up in your houses. Behold, in all this there is indeed a message for you, if you are [truly] believers.” (Qur’an 3:49)

One may think he mentioned healing the blind, the leper and bringing the dead back to life. However, in this frame work Jesus heals the spiritually blind, and the spiritually sick and spiritually brings dead hearts back to life.

“The sunnah of Allah with those who passed on before; and you will not find in the sunnah of Allah any change.” (Qur’an 33:62) 

“No change will you find in Allah’s Sunnah, and no turning off will you find in Allah’s Sunnah.” (Qur’an 35:43)

The above verses are often appealed to at the very least ground the argument in something textual. Which is certainly appreciated.  However, these same people believe that Allah (swt) created the first thing he created directly. Yet, after that they have two options. 


Option 1: Allah Creates Everything Directly.Meaning he has willed what the state of any given thing will be at any particular time.
If Allah’s Sunnah requires that every effect has a prior physical cause, then the first created thing had no prior physical cause. This means Allah willed what state a particular thing would be at any given time.

But if Allah can create the first thing directly—violating the supposed “rule” that every effect needs a prior physical cause—then He can create anything directly at any time.

This includes:

Creating Jesus without a father.

Creating a snake from a staff.

Creating life from clay.

Conclusion: Miracles are not violations of Allah’s Sunnah. They are direct acts of Allah, just like the original creation.

Option 2: Allah Creates Through an Intermediary Chain.
If you insist that Allah never creates directly but always through a chain of causes and effects, then you face an infinite regress:

Who created the first cause?

And who created the cause of that cause?

To avoid infinite regress, you must eventually arrive at a first cause that creates directly—which is Option 1.

Alternatively, if you say the chain is eternal (no first cause), that is philosophical nonsense (and shirk, as it implies an uncreated universe alongside Allah).

The Neoplatontonic Trap.
If miracle-deniers insist that Allah never creates directly but only through intermediaries, they fall into a Neoplatonic emanationist framework:

A series of intelligences or spheres that mediate creation.

The “First Intellect” emanates from Allah, then creates the next, and so on.

This effectively creates demi-gods—intermediary creators.

This is shirk because it attributes creative power to beings other than Allah. The Qur’an is clear:

“Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is, over all things, Disposer of affairs.” (Qur’an 39:62)

“Is there any creator other than Allah who provides for you from the heaven and earth?” (Qur’an 35:3)


Allah created the first thing directly, without any prior cause. This act of direct creation is itself the origin of Allah’s Sunnah, not a violation of it. Allah may choose what state or conditoin anything will be in at any given time-what are called miracles. They do not change Allah’s Sunnah; they are expressions of His absolute power to create as He wills.

The verse that our opponents use (Qur’an 35:43) actually proves our position.

The verse speaks of Allah’s sunnah in dealing with arrogant nations—His pattern of sending messengers, giving them time to repent, and then punishing them if they persist in evil. This has nothing to do with physical causality.

They are committing category error by taking a verse about divine justice and applying it to physics. The “no change” in Allah’s Sunnah refers to His moral and historical patterns—not to whether He can create a fatherless child.

This article will be addressing points that Mufti Abu Layth made in regards to the ‘Virgin birth of Jesus’. We should say that, for the most part, We disagree with Mufti Abu Layth on few issues. He was willing to make himself accessible to the general public and found favour among some Muslim youth. Many of those Muslim youth were reconsidering their own convictions about Islam. For that effort and ijtihad, surely his reward is with Allah.

However, We don’t really feel that this article is a refutation of points raised by Mufti Abu Layth at all. That is because to those who pay attention to detail will find that these are in reality not arguments presented by Mufti Abu Layth.

Another article that We wrote was in agreement with Mufti Abu Layth on the issue of the ‘Second coming of Jesus’. Yet, even in that article We pointed out that perhaps Mufti Abu Layth may have some misgivings about the Christian tradition.

For example here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHzYu3BKBWE

@40:12 ” The second coming of Jesus is so important in Christianity. It perhaps is the second most important belief in Christianity. It is on the back of this belief that Christianity rose. If you don’t believe me go do your research. Because…the…believe it or not things like the virgin birth…Jesus uh uh Mary having a virgin birth are actually not that important in Christianity. Contrary to what many people think. They’re actually not, hence many early Christians did not even believe in that. The Gospel of Matthew doesn’t accept the virgin birth. The uh St. Paul didn’t even accept things like that. It was only 2-300 years after Jesus that the Christian Church made the virgin birth as part of its belief. But this, Jesus coming back was so important for Christianity.”

There are in our opinion some problematic statements in the aforementioned.

Mufti Abu Layth has said: “It perhaps is the second most important belief in Christianity.” Not even close. In fairness he did say, “perhaps.”

Mufti Abu Layth has said: ”It is on the back of this belief that Christianity rose. “

Perhaps he misspoke here. Or perhaps We misunderstood him.

We have to believe that he did, because it doesn’t even make any sense. How does an belief in the second coming of Jesus become the bedrock and foundation of Christianity?

Christianity would have to be established first before you could even know what its basic doctrines even are! In other words Jesus has to be credible the first time around before We can even start talking about him returning. We have to believe he misspoke here. Or perhaps We misunderstood his point.

Mufti Abu Layth has said: “Things like the virgin birth…Jesus uh uh Mary having a virgin birth are actually not that important in Christianity.“

Mufti Abu Layth couldn’t make this claim to any reputable Christian scholar, without being taken to task for it. The immaculate conception of Christ Jesus, his nature, the nature of his birth, the prophecies concerning his birth are of utmost importance to the Christian faith tradition.

Mufti Abu Layth has said: “Contrary to what many people think. They’re actually not, hence many early Christians did not even believe in that. “

From that it follows We may inquire:

Which early Christians didn’t believe in the virgin birth?

What are your sources?

Whom are you relying upon for this information?

Mufti Abu Layth has said: “The Gospel of Matthew doesn’t accept the virgin birth.“

The response to that is: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” (Matthew 1:23)

Mufti Abu Layth has said: “ The uh St. Paul didn’t even accept things like that.”

This claim is being made on the basis of what?

What text?

What source?

We would be willing to respectfully suggest to him that Perhaps he had Galatians 4:4 or Romans 1:3 in mind?

Mufti Abu Layth has said: It was only 200-300 years after Jesus that the Christian Church made the virgin birth as part of its belief.”

Ourresponse: That is not accurate. Not even close. In fact, it is a belief of Muslims as well.

You can see the evidence for it being a belief of Muslims here: https://primaquran.wordpress.com/2019/08/23/muslims-who-dont-believe-in-miracles-the-case-of-the-virgin-birth/

The actual evidences that are brought to reject the virgin birth of Christ Jesus.

Now, let us turn our attention to his statements concerning the Qur’an and this matter.

So please see what Mufti Abu Layth has said on the subject here:

So this is the video that is titled: “Does the Qur’an Mention a Virgin Birth for Jesus?” Mufti Abu Layth lays out his view, his proofs and justifications.

So where do We begin with the 20 minutes and 21 seconds that have been allotted to this subject by Mufti Abu Layth?

Well, the beginning of course!

Allow us to preface by saying that We do not think that people are unbelievers for saying that Jesus the son of Mary was conceived through a father and mother. We certainly don’t believe that.

We will say this though, something has to be said about combing through the mountain of scholarship that exists across the Shia/Sunni/Ibadi communities and coming up with two names; both of whom which are anonymous and not given to us.

Now, just because We may not have heard of these people does that mean anything bad? No, it is simply a demonstration of my ignorance and those of us who have never heard of them. However, the absolute, overwhelming, tsunami of scholarship across sectarian lines in Islam is that Jesus the son of Mary was born of a virgin. That being said We agree with Mufti Abu Layth that truth is not a democracy.

Truth is truth and it stands or falls based upon the veracity and scrutiny of it’s own claims.

We would also add that it is the theological view of Mufti Abu Layth in denying miracles that is what drives him to impose this view upon the text. After all, if you are going to deny miracles taking place you are either all in or all out.

That has been a particular view held by some Muslims in Islamic history, namely that miracles violate the laws of causality.

An interesting thought experiment in regards to the available text.

What would be interesting as a social experiment would be to find a group of people, who are not Muslims and who are not privy to these discussions in Islam and give them all the relevant text on the subject and after they read the text to ask them the following:

  1. Based upon the available data in the text you read do you believe that the text teaches that Jesus was born miraculously and/or from a virgin birth?
  2. Based upon the available data in the text you read do you believe that the text teaches that Mary got married and she conceived Jesus through a natural process?

That would be most intriguing.

Mufti Abu Layth @0:35 makes an astonishing claim in the beginning. He says that the language of the Qur’an is quite interesting and that it is styled in a way that no Muslim believes about Jesus the son of Mary.

Our response: We certainly believe that Jesus is a word proceeding from Allah (swt). We certainly believe that Jesus is a spirit proceeding from Allah (swt).

Mufti Abu Layth claims that ‘That it is styled in a way that no Muslim believes about Jesus’ that claim of his is patently false.

Certainly what our respected brother Mufti Abu Layth has said is factually incorrect.

In fact, We are telling you in all our years and exposure to Islam and Muslims, and an array of opinions and perspectives this is the very first time We are seeing any Muslim raise an objection. So it is quite the opposite of what he claimed.

@0:38 Mufti Abu Layth says, “For example, Jesus is referred to on more than one occasion in the Qur’an as ‘The word of God’, now that doesn’t resonate with Muslims.”

Again, this is absolute news to us. That it does not resonate with Muslims?

Yet, it is a curiosity that he chose to render the text as ‘The word of God‘?

@0:56 Mufti Abu Layth We feel he meant to quote Qur’an 3:45 and not 3:43 but he quotes:

“Allah says, when giving glad tidings to Mary that she had received bi kalimatin min’hu (of the word coming from God) us’muhu l-masīḥu ʿīsā ub’nu maryama (the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary).”

Comment: Notice that Mufti Abu Layth himself translates as “the word coming from God.” We didn’t tell him to do that. No one else told him to do that either.

@1:20 Mufti Abu Layth continues: “In another verse surah al Nisa 170 (4:170) innamā l-masīḥu ʿīsā ub’nu maryama rasūlu l-lahi wakali (that Jesus is the messenger of God and his Word which he sent down or threw down onto Mary, and the Spirit of God)warūḥun min (once again what are these words. No Muslim really believes this about Jesus. If you want to accept literal no Muslim believes that.”

Comment: Notice that Mufti Abu Layth himself translates “his word which he sent down.” We didn’t tell him to do that. No one else told him to do that either.

@1:54 Mufti Abu Layth continues: “You see this is very very like in the Gospel of John that in the beginning there was the you know the the in the beginning there was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God.”

Mufti Abu Layth has stated: @0:38 “For example Jesus is referred to on more than one occasion in the Qur’an as ‘the word of God‘, now that doesn’t resonate with Muslims.”

He says that the Qur’an says on more than one occasion Jesus is called, ‘the word of God’ but he himself didn’t give us one example of this. Instead, he himself translated the text as ‘his word sent down’ and ‘word coming from God.’

If Mufti Abu Layth doesn’t know the vast theological difference between the Qur’anic concept of Jesus as ‘a word proceeding from Allah’ (swt) and the Christian idea of the Word being the Logos than he might want to take some time to read up on and research these matters.

“Kalimatullah” is an honorific title given most likely by the Sunni Muslim tradition to Jesus the son of Mary. However, We haven’t personally seen the Qur’an refer to Jesus as ‘The Word of Allah’. We have no idea where Mufti Abu Layth derived that from.

The concept put forth in the prologue of the Gospel according to John, the Christian understanding of Jesus as the Logos is understood by the following text:

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.”—(Colossians 1:15–16)

There is no theological school among Muslims (that We are aware of) that comes even remotely close to such an understanding of Jesus role as ‘word’.

However, if Jesus is not understood as the Created word of Allah than this indeed is problematic. If this is the point that Mufti Abu Layth is driving home than he and us are of one accord.

For example is statement here @2:03 with:

“And as Muslims, IF you believe that ‘the word of God’ is uncreated than by that it follows almost ties into Jesus being uncreated.”

This point Mufti Abu Layth is echoing comes from those of us who do not believe that the Qur’an is uncreated. The Qur’an is created.

We do recall a brother sending us a clip of Mufti Abu Layth claiming that this theological controversy surrounding the Qur’an was a non-issue. However, We can see by the point that he has raised by those us who do not believe the Qur’an to be eternal, that it is an issue.

In fact, We think it would be great if Mufti Abu Layth cleared up for us what his position is on this issue. Does Mufti Abu Layth believe that the Qur’an is eternal and uncreated or does he believe it is created? He certainly hasn’t been shy from controversy in the past so why not make this stance clear?

Mufti Abu Layth says, @2:17, “Now Muslims will say oh by ‘the word of God’ here We just mean he was a miracle. No, but that word of God isn’t used for any other prophet.”

Our comments:

We think Mufti Abu Layth is making a non-argument. We are certainly not in the habit of calling Jesus, ‘the word of God.’

The Holy Spirit.

Mufti Abu Layth continues @2:42 “And than the word ‘The Holy Spirit’ is used with no other prophet. We mean it’s used as revelation coming down with the ‘Holy Spirit’ but otherwise it’s used on three occasions just for Jesus. So you have for example Allah says in Surah al Baqarah verse 87, wa-ayyadnāhu birūḥi l-qudusi (We assistedWe gave him assistance, help with the Holy Spirit)”

He continues @3:12 “In Surah Baqarah verse 253, waātaynā ʿīsā ib’na maryama l-bayināti (We gave him the clear signs) wa-ayyadnāhu birūḥi l-qudus (and We helped him with the Holy Spirit).”

He continues @3:23 “In Surah Maidah verse 115 Allah says,” idh qāla l-lahu yāʿīsā ib’na maryama (and when God said oh Jesus the son of Mary) udh’kur niʿ’matī ʿalayka (remember my blessing upon you and your mother) wālidatika idh ayyadttuka birūḥi l-qudusi (when I helped you with the Holy Spirit).”

Mufti Abu Layth continues @ 3:43 “What is this Holy Spirit? This isn’t mentioned with any other prophet generally you don’t get any of the…So there’s allot of rhetoric being used that when it comes to Jesus was generally the kind of Christian rhetoric that is used in the Qur’an perhaps in a sense of building bridges; between the Muslims and the Christian communities and to maybe A) Find an ally in them. And B) maybe for many of them to convert and come closer. Find themselves in greater proximity to Islam and thereby embrace the message.”

Perhaps We are misunderstanding Mufti Abu Layth’s summary. Although, his language suggests someone who views the Qur’an as a product of the Prophet’s mind (saw) rather than divine revelation.

In other words, rather than the Qur’an being a divine revelation, in which common points of theology are discussed, it is simply a strategy or a device used to win over Christians. We would expect that train of thought from an Orientalist who sees the Qur’an as the product of the Prophet Muhammed’s mind. (saw).

Again maybe We are reading too much into what he is trying to convey; However, the language is concerning.

The Virgin Birth

So now we finally come to this section. Mufti Abu Layth starts off with making some rather bizarre statements.

He says, @6:22 “Now when it comes to the virgin birth, first of all, it’s a different topic that even in the Bible right, now, with the exception of the Gospel of Luke and Matthew, generally the Bible never really referred to in essence the virgin birth. I mean this wasn’t a the early Christians it’s not it’s most likely that the early Christians did not believe in a virgin birth.”

Our comments: We thought this statement was bizarre because the central theme of the Bible is about God acting in history to save his people (The Children of Israel). The central theme is a lost humanity that needs to be reconciled back with God. Thus the theme of salvation and redemption are central. So We thought it was a bizarre statement to imply that just because the Bible (New Testament) refers the virgin birth only twice We could somehow be dismissive of it.

He continues @6:59 “and the prophecy that they are referring to in the Old Testament even Biblical scholars highlight that word does not say, ‘betul’ (virgin) it says ‘almah’ (which meant a young girl); as in like a young maiden. Uh which most likely was a virgin, but didn’t have to be. So the same word is used with Solomon and the same word is used on a certain occasion ‘almah’ who had a child. So it’s one of the prophecies that they mentioned in the old testament that they kind of fall back on. But you will see before the Gospels are written, So any of the letters of the Apostles of the letters for example Paul and all of these there is never a mention of a miraculous birth of Jesus. And this comes much later, definitely by the second century, after Jesus. This becomes doctrine.”

Our comments: We feel that some Muslims most likely are deeply affected and moved by Western Orientalists. So the thinking here is that whoever wrote the virgin birth narrative wanted to justify this by appealing to text in the Old Testament.

The reliance of this author upon the Greek Septuagint could be a mistranslation error. So the Muslim thinking is, “Wouldn’t be odd if We incorporated into our faith (The Qur’an) something that turned out to be a simple translation error?”

We have addressed this line of thinking here: https://primaquran.wordpress.com/2019/05/17/a-jewish-argument-against-the-quran/

I’m happy to see that Mufti Abu Layth has acknowledged that Matthew does mention the virgin birth, whereas before he made an error in saying that it didn’t.

Mufti Abu Layth’s train of thought on the writings of Paul is that he didn’t explicitly mention any narrative of the virgin birth and thus he does not believe it. However, this belies a few points.

1) Is it the task for Paul to reacquaint Christians with beliefs they already held?

2) Luke (who did indeed write about the virgin birth) was a companion of Paul.

3) Paul didn’t even mention Mary not a single time ever. So are We to assume that Paul didn’t believe that Mary existed?

We believe that Mufti Abu Layth is making some solid points but he needs to be prepared for what the other side will say.

Where Mufti Abu Layth really tries to force the points is where We can see that in this video he decries the fact that Muslims hold beliefs that are similar to Christians and yet tries to convince us that Christians themselves didn’t believe in the virgin birth!

The point here is that the text of the Qur’an is not beholden to what 1st, 2nd, or 3rd century Christians believed or did not believe.

That was the point of my article: https://primaquran.wordpress.com/2019/05/17/a-jewish-argument-against-the-quran/

The Qur’an doesn’t quote from Isaiah.

@8:15 Mufti Abu Layth says, “Mary was definitely married and she was most likely definitely not a virgin.“

Our comments: What proof do you have Mufti Abu Layth that Mary was married and was ‘most likely definitely not’ a virgin?

@8:28 Mufti Abu Layth asserts, “Jesus had brothers and sisters. In fact, the Gospel of Mark and definitely Matthew 13 mention James, Joses, Jude, Simeon, and unnamed sisters were the children of Mary.”

Our comments: No where does the text of Matthew assert that the brothers of Jesus were the children of Mary. That is an open challenge to anyone; and not just Mufti Abu Layth.

We believe the text that Mufti Abu Layth had in mind is:

“When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at him.” (Matthew 13:54-57)

We do not know from memory what reference he had in mind for the Gospel of Mark.

So let’s unpack this further. Why do the ‘brothers of Jesus’ have to have come from Mary and not simply from another marriage of Joseph? The text not once calls any of them the children of Mary. That is an assumption.

Second, you have to understand that the name Mary itself was just as common as John is among English speakers today.

“Among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matthew 27:56); “There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome” (Mark 15:40).“But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” (John 19:25)

Ahmed Deedat used to say, ‘sons by the tons’ now We have ‘Marys by the millions’.

Remember the difficulty Christians and Orientalist would give us over the following text in the Qur’an:

“At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: “O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! “O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!” (Qur’an 19:27-28)

Today no one understands that Mary the mother of Jesus is the literal sister of Aaron the brother of Moses. This was certainly due to them not understanding Arabic and the context of how the language was used than.

@9:16 Mufti Abu Layth says, “Although no verse in the Qur’an says that she had a virgin birth.”

My response: The Qur’an nowhere says that Mary was married to Joseph or anyone. The Qur’an nowhere calls him, ‘ Jesus the son of Joseph’ or the son of any man.

The Qur’an taken as a whole conclusively proves that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary.

@10:00 minutes into the video Mufti Abu Layth mentions the name of only two scholars that state that the birth of Jesus was from a mother and a father.

What would be nice is to have the references or citations from these two anonymous men so that one could look at what they said.

Now, all We have to go on is what Mufti Abu Layth relates from these two anonymous scholars. However, if what he relates from them is as he says then it is simply not grounded in anything concrete.

Mufti Abu Layth continues…

“What these people said that it was a natural birth and that’s not the case. The miracle they highlighted is that when she got married to Joseph that Joseph would abstain and he was not interested in any kind of intimacy. And hence when the angel came and she, ‘But how can I have a child when I haven’t even been touched.’ That after that she did conceive. She conceived naturally. Just as Ibrahim (as) wife said How can I have a child when the angel came to her and she said I’ve reached menopause I’m an old lady. And they said and the angel said its the decree of God. It doesn’t mean she had a natural somehow kind of non sexual birth. It didn’t mean that. Just as the wife of Zachariah in the Qur’an who says that uh she was barren. She says, ‘How can I have a child.’ And the angel says, It is the decree of God. It doesn’t’ mean she just conceived just like that. She had a husband Zechariah. So these people who have argued this point have gone with just those two prophets before them. They said, well the same thing was said to them. Same thing was said to Mary. Every body accepts Mary had a husband at the time Joseph. The difference however was was that birth a virgin birth. Muslims do not believe she remained a virgin throughout her life.”

Comments: So let us pause here and unpack what brother Mufti Abu Layth presented to us.

  1. Mufti Abu Layth and/or these two scholars tell us that “She got married to Joseph and that Joseph would abstain” Where do We find this statement in the Qur’an or the Sunnah? Remember Mufti Abu Layth likes to say, “Quran wa Sunnah”, “Quran wa Sunnah.”
  2. Mufti Abu Layth and/or these two scholars tell us that “How can I have a child when the angel came to her and she said I’ve reached menopause I’m an old lady.”

This is the part in the article where We step away from the keyboard and hand it over to my mother or sister…

“Dear Mufti Abu Layth did you just say this woman reached menopause?”

“Dear Mufti Abu Layth did you know that during menopause ovulation ceases and a woman is unable to have children naturally?”

Now, this is the point where We can proclaim a checkmate on Mufti Abu Layth on three points.

The first is that he actually believes in a miraculous conception after all. A woman giving birth when she is no longer producing eggs is quite the miracle indeed!

Second, since this woman is having miraculous birth without eggs We can no longer discount the virgin birth of Christ Jesus.

The Third is that Mufti Abu Layth admits to angels being sent to break the natural laws. Why? Nothing in the text indicates that these women would have had children otherwise if not that an angel had appeared to them.

Why send an angel in the first place?

So this concept that Mufti Abu Layth doesn’t believe that the divine violates the natural laws has been brought into disrepute.

If Allah hadn’t intervened Ibrahim’s wife wouldn’t conceive after menopause, Zechariah’s wife would still be barren, and presumably, Joseph’s libido would be abysmal.

One last point on what Mufti Abu Layth said before We move on.

He rendered the Arabic text of Mary’s response as, “And hence when the angel came and she said, ‘But how can I have a child when I haven’t even been touched.”

Now Ustadh We have to say that was clever, clever indeed. You sir, naugty, naughty.

Again, We would like to ask you when you say, “Everybody accepts Mary had a husband at the time Joseph” and when you say, “Muslims do not believe she remained a virgin throughout her life.”

Where did you get this from?

We thought it was, “Quran wa Sunnah” Quran wa Sunnah” or do We take our beliefs from the Christians now?

Mufti Abu Layth continues @11:31

“And here’s another verse. Now this is an interesting one. Now Shaykh Yasir Qadhi who is saying, ‘No We only must go with literal readings of the Qur’an’, in Surah Al-Tahrim verse 12 you have the verse about Mary, wamaryama ib’nata ʿim’rāna allatī aḥṣanat farjahā (And Mary who had been chased and safeguarded her private parts) and ‘ahsana‘ by the way is a verb that is used often in Arabic to do wife safe guarding through marriage. So hence they say somebody is in trouble for adultery were they ‘wahsan’. As Allah says in the Qur’an, ‘Waalmuhsanatu mina alnnisa’. Which is the beginning of the fifth Juz. Is referring to those women who were married. Who are chased through marriage. O.K? ‘nata ʿim’rāna allatī aḥṣanat farjahā fanafakhnā fīhi min rūḥinā’ You see this verse reads, ‘And Maryam the daughter of Imran who safeguarded her genitals her private parts We breathed into that, into it. Says, ‘ fanafakhnā fīhi’ (into her private parts) min rūḥinā (of our spirit) Now that’s in Surat Al Tahrim. As far as I’m aware no Muslim would generally believe that to be literal.”

My response: Yet, it doesn’t occur to Mufti Abu Layth, Allah (swt) using quite a literal language to get a point across?

No one else in the Qur’an is described with this type of language.

This language was not used of either Zecharia’s wife or Ibrahim’s wife. Allah (swt) again and again and again, addresses Jesus as ‘The son of Mary’, Jesus is called ‘A Spirit Proceeding from Him’ and even very strong literal language that shocked Muslim commentators is employed.

Are We really to believe as Mufti Abu Layth wants us to believe so that We as Muslims can believe that Jesus was born to a father named Joseph who is not even mentioned in the Qur’an, or Sunnah so that We can eventually adopt the Christian belief that Joseph is the father of Jesus? That is really quite something isn’t it.

@15:47 Mufti Abu Layth says, “Yes Allah could have clearly said and Yes Jesus didn’t have a dad but Allah doesn’t say that once in the Qur’an. He does not say that.”

My response: Yes and Allah could have clearly said and Yes Jesus does have a dad. But Allah doesn’t once say that Jesus had a dad.

In fact, what does Allah (swt) tell us?

There is a proof from the Qur’an that weighs in on this.

Allah (swt) tell us the following:

“Call them by the names of their fathers; it is more just in the sight of Allah.” (Qur’an 33:5)

So why doesn’t Allah (swt) do this when it comes to Jesus if he had a father?

Wouldn’t it be more just in the sight of Allah (swt) to call Jesus the son of (X) rather than Jesus the son of Mary?

Doesn’t’ this pique your interest at all brother Mufti Abu Layth? You don’t find it a bit odd that Allah (swt) calls Jesus the son of Mary over and over and over again?

With all due respect, you have resorted to incorporating Christian beliefs into Islam!

There is no mention of Joseph being the husband of Mary or the father of Jesus in the Qur’an.

There is no mention from the Blessed Prophet (saw) about Joseph being the husband of Mary or the father of Jesus from the lips of the Blessed Prophet (saw).

On what consistent basis do you tell us to guard against the idea of the second coming of Jesus as a belief that ‘crept into Islam’ when you have stormed the front gate with this? On what consistent basis can you do this?

@16:18 In fact, what does Allah (swt) tell us? is going to bring us the arguments of the two scholars he mentioned earlier. These supposedly rock-solid arguments against the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin. They are supposed to be arguments that Jesus was born of a natural father. So let us have at it.

Argument #1

And Zechariah and John and Jesus and Elias – and all were of the righteous. And Ishmael and Elisha and Jonah and Lot – and all of them We preferred over the worlds. And some among their fathers and their descendants and their brothers – and We chose them and We guided them to a straight path. (Qur’an 6:85-87)

Comments: So for those who may not follow the argument, basically the line of thinking here is that it mentions a whole grouping of Prophets and mentions in this context their fathers. So somehow Mufti Abu Layth and his scholars use this to advocate that all the prophets had fathers.

We will give you our understanding of this verse and We will show you why our understanding is valid and Mufti Abu Layth’s understanding is not.

Our understanding is that when it says, “their fathers and their descendants and their brothers” that this doesn’t mean that all of the prophets had fathers and children and brothers. Our understanding is that this verse addresses those who did have ‘fathers, descendants and brothers’.

Whereas if Mufti Abu Layth is going to be consistent and assert that ‘their fathers’ means ‘they all had fathers’ than the text that reads ‘their descendants’ if We are to be consistent must mean ‘they all had descendants.’

This would make Mufti Abu Layth the first Muslim to my knowledge to assert that John the Baptist and Jesus had children. That verse no more ‘weighs in on the side’ that Jesus had a father than it does ‘weigh in on the side’ that Jesus had children.

So that argument fails.

Argument #2

@17:40 Mufti Abu Layth brings the other argument that these scholars use. Mufti Abu Layth thinks that this is a very ‘powerful verse’ that they use!

“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can God have a child, when He did not have a wife or a companion” (Qur’an 6:101)

A whole post dedicated to this “powerful verse” right here: https://primaquran.com/2019/10/31/putting-to-bed-the-big-verse-against-the-virgin-birth/

First We find it interesting that Mufti Abu Layth has decided to translate the Arabic term ‘sahibatun’ as ‘wife’ or a ‘companion’. The Arabic term ‘zawja‘ it is not used in this context. Whereas We would have translated it as ‘companion’ and for good reason. Whereas Mufti Abu Layth focuses on the term ‘wife’.

Mufti Abu Layth and his two scholars’ understanding of this verse is both theologically unsound and outright egregious.

The way they understand the text, We must either choose between a Creator that is impotent (May Allah forgive us and guide us) or a Creator that is like his creation (May Allah forgive us and guide us).

Some questions that Mufti Abu Layth and his scholars would need to reflect on in order to come to the proper understanding of the verse would be:

Why can’t Allah (swt) have a son without a wife?

If you understand it the way that Mufti Abu Layth and his two scholars do, it makes Allah (swt) imply that he would need to have a wife. On what consistent basis could you make this claim if taking the verse as a whole?

Would they be opposed to the idea of Allah (swt) having a wife or a son based upon their logic? In other words do they or do they not find it a theological impossibility for Allah (swt) to have a wife and/or a son? So could Allah (swt) have a wife or a son? (May Allah forgive us and guide us).

Why do they (Mufti Abu Layth) and his two scholars assert that Allah (swt) would need to be like his creation or unlike his creation in the process of bringing a son into being?

“There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)

@19:26 Mufti Abu Layth makes what has to be the most incoherent statement thatWe are aware of since making You-Tube videos. “God doesn’t need to. God could just make a child without having a female. That’s an argument, that’s an argument against God, for using that as an argument. The only way that verse can make sense is if all births follow a natural law of order.”

How about We actually look at the whole verse, and not just a section of the verse? Why not look at the whole verse? Is that fair?

“Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a child when He does not have a companion and He created all things? And He is, of all things, Knowing.”(Qur’an 6:101)

Allah (swt) is the originator of the heavens and the earth. Does Mufti Abu Layth and/or his two scholars believe that there was a wife or an associate, or a partner or a companion that helped Allah (swt) in this?

Could Mufti Abu Layth and/or his two scholars tell us what natural laws did Allah (swt) follow or was beholden to when creating our reality and our existence?

The verse says, “He created all things.” In other words, if He Allah (swt) had a companion it would have to be a peer (a an equal to God). So Allah (swt) does not have a companion to begin with.

What is meant by having a companion?

Why do people seek out companionship/friendship/associates and peers?

Anything that human beings can receive from companions/friends/peers and associates stems from needs, and Allah (swt) is free from needs. Whatever people get from having associates and companions Allah (swt) can simply create it.

“There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)

If Allah (swt) had a companion /associate/ or peer it would entail being of the exact divine nature of Allah (swt). Allah (swt) crushes that notion with the following ‘He created ALL things’.

It is only logical that you can’t have two uncreated beings.

It is only logical that you can’t have two originators. This would also entail having a walad (a child)

Mufti Abu Layth is adamant that Allah (swt) is showing them their reasoning.

Mufti Abu Layth is focused on the issue of ‘walad’ whereas Allah (swt) is saying he doesn’t have a ‘sahibatun’ or a companion to begin with!

She said, “How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?” (Qur’an 19:20)

So according to Mufti Abu Layth and his select scholars, they understand this as Mary saying, “But I’ll have a child when I get pregnant by my husband.”

“How can God have a child, when He did not have a wife or a companion” (Qur’an 6:101)

So according to Mufti Abu Layth and his two scholars, they understand Allah as saying, “But if I had a wife I could have a child.”

Which is simply theologically unsound.Their interpretation of the text ignores the whole of the verse; and worse yet, it doesn’t negate for Allah (swt) the possibility of having a companion! (May Allah pardon us).

If anything in this article is good and beneficial, all praise be to Allah (swt). If there are any mistakes then surely this is from us. May Allah (swt) continue to guide and bless us. We seek the help of Allah (swt) and the help of Allah (swt) is sought.

May Allah (swt) bless Mufti Abu Layth for what he has brought that is good and May Allah (swt) forgive him and forgive us. May Allah (swt) guide him and guide us.

For those interested you may wish to read the following articles:

The Eternal Word of Allah? Did Jesus pre-exist in Islam?
Does Allah need a wife to have a son?

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

18 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

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

May 26, 2026 · 2:06 am

Same Sex Marriages in light of the Qur’an.

“O humanity, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing, Well Acquainted.” (Qur’an 49:13)

“And do not approach unlawful sexual intercourse. Indeed, it is ever an immorality and is evil as a way.” (Qur’an 17:32)

“Allah (swt) reminded us of the promise of Satan where he said: And I will command them so they will change the creation of Allah.” (Qur’an 4:119)

﷽

All of human existence that is observable and known has come through the pairing of a male with a female. Every single person in existence today who claims to be a part of LGBT+ is the result of heterosexual reproduction.

So set thy face to the way of life that is upright and in harmony with nature, the pattern which He originated mankind. There is no changing Allah’s creation. That is the upright way of life; but most men know it not. (Qur’an 30:30)

The exceptions to this have come through supernatural means. Adam being the first of the creation was created without a mother and a father. Eve being created without a female. Christ Jesus being created without a father.

This entry is to address whether or not the Qur’an (the foundation of Islam) allows for or makes room for same sex marriage. We will also likewise be addressing the issue of LGBT in particular transsexuals and people who inject hormones and have physical operations to change their gender.

First We would like to share a personal story of a friend of one of our colleagues (who will remain anonymous). This friend of theirs would see attend the Friday prayer on a regular basis. At that time they actually were not friends; however as Muslims they were brothers in faith.

He approached our colleague and asked them about the work (giving guided tours to tourists) at the Masjid. They became good friends and went out for lunch. Our colleague believes that they understood from his mannerisms that our colleague knew he was homosexual or “gay”. So he confided in our colleague and our colleague told him that they knew that he had those inclinations.

So he asked our colleague, “So what do you think? Where am I going when I die?” Our colleague told him, “My brother and my friend, if you were to reach your hand into my pocket you will not find a ticket with my name on it that says seat number 7 aisle 10 guaranteed paradise. If that is the case for myself, who am I to say about you or anyone else? You should know that to act upon your desire is sinful in the same way that if an unmarried man or woman acted upon their desire it is a sin.”

Al hamdulillah, this brother goes to the masjid. Accordingly, our colleague has never known him to intentionally miss prayers. They known that he does his best to support his mother and sister in Malaysia. He has compassion and love for others in his heart. Allah (swt), the All-Wise, the Just, and the Compassionate is his judge, not me.

Sowe feel the first thing to do is look at the following verse of the Qur’an again.

“So set thy face to the religion that is upright and in harmony with nature, the pattern which He originated mankind. There is no changing Allah’s creation. That is the upright religion; but most men know it not.” (Qur’an 30:29)

As Islam is a worldview and a way of life that is in harmony and balance with nature, the first question should be: Does Allah (swt) disallow or absolutely abhor the idea of any species changing its sex?

The answer to that would be an emphatic No! The proof of that is that the majority of snails are hermaphrodites — that is, they carry both sexual organs and need only one other snail to procreate their species.

rainbow-snail-wallpaper-1024x640

The purpose of this in nature is to allow proliferation of their species.

*Note* Snails do not undergo any physical operating procedures; this is their fitra.

There are also species of fish that will change from male into female and female into male. Our colleague used to keep a reef tank and learned quite a bit about corals, inverts, and the various fish species that they desired to keep and learn about.

One such gorgeous species is the Anthias.

download (4)

“Harem groups usually consist of several females, their young (both male and female), and a single dominant male. Parrotfishes, wrasses, anemonefishes, and anthias form harem groups, but harems are not unique to reef fishes. Elephant seals, common pheasants, and several species of baboons also use this reproductive strategy. The single dominant male defends his group of females, and he may reproduce with one or several of his choosing. The advantages are for the females to reproduce with the strongest male and for the male to produce many offspring. The single largest disadvantage is that reproductive success for the females may be seriously jeopardized in the absence of the male. It is such a disadvantage that most families of reef fishes that practice this form of social behavior have evolved an interesting solution to the lack of a reproductive partner; the largest female will turn into a male and assume harem control and reproductive responsibilities. This reproductive strategy, whereby an individual begins life as one sex and switches to the opposite sex at some point in their life, is called sequential hermaphroditism. In the case of females turning into males, it is called protandrous hermaphroditism, or protandry.” see link: https://coraltriangleadventures.com/sex-changing-anthias/

The purpose of this in nature is to allow proliferation of their species.

*Note* Anthias do not undergo any physical operating procedures; this is their fitra.

Another example is the Ocellaris ‘Clown Fish’. Our colleague witnessed this first hand. Our colleague had two small male clownfish and over time one of them became larger than the other and this one actually became a female.

PeoqvqR

“Clownfish are all born males and the dominant male of a group will turn female when the female of that group dies.”

“Clownfish, also known as anemonefish, are sequential hermaphrodites that first develop into males. In fact, they live in regimented schools made up of all males and just one female — the lone female being the dominant and generally the largest fish in a given group. The second in command of the school is usually the largest, and most aggressive, male of the group. Due to his dominance of the other males, he’ll tend to ensure they stay small via taking the best food opportunities for himself and the like. Besides the perks of more food, he’s also the only one that gets to breed with the female.” see link: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/08/clownfish-are-all-born-male-a-dominant-male-will-turn-female-when-the-current-female-of-the-group-dies/

The purpose of this in nature is to allow proliferation of their species.

*Note* Clownfish do not undergo any physical operating procedures; this is their fitra.

These three examples will suffice. It should be noted in all these examples there are no physical operations or physical procedures being done to these species. These are all built-in mechanisms. These are all done with the purpose and drive to proliferate their species. All of this is permitted and allowed by Allah (swt). Allah (swt) deemed it an appropriate mechanism for their proliferation and survival of their species.

However, Allah (swt) has not allowed this for humans. This is not the strategy that Allah (swt) has devised for human proliferation.

There has never been a recorded case in human history of a situation where a male or female human being has undergone or experienced sequential hermaphroditism. Even in all-male prisons or all-female prisons or in other cases where males/females have been more numerous than the other.

We should also be aware that just as there are genetic disorders in animals (a subject that is still vastly under-researched), there are also genetic disorders among humans. There is also a whole field of science called abnormal psychology, among them is gender dysphoria. This is a branch of science that studies unusual patterns of behavior, emotion and thought, which may or may not be understood as precipitating a mental disorder.

In conclusion, transgender marriage, or even changing one’s sexuality through outside physical operations, is something that goes against the natural order and is against the fitra as prescribed by Allah (swt).

What about same sex marriage between gays and lesbians?

Before we get into the Qur’an on this issue we would also like to take the time to post a video that we highly recommend from Professor Richard Dawkins. Professor Richard Dawkins is a well-known evolutionary biologist who is no friend to religion.

Watch in the first video how Professor Richard Dawkins struggles to make the case for the ‘gay gene’.

“The gay gene was passed on in the bodies of the children that were being protected by the gay uncles.” — Professor Richard Dawkins

It is highly astonishing that someone of Oxford education could even make a statement like this. It begs the question: where did the ‘gay uncle’ come from? How was the ‘gay gene’ passed on in the bodies of the children? That could only come from ‘bisexual’ uncles, not from purely homosexual men.

He then proceeds to his “Sneaky Fucker Theory”.

Listen carefully to what he says:

“Which is the idea that the males who possess the gay gene — many of them may not have been wholly homosexual, they may be bisexual. In that case, go back to our scenario of the dominant males going off hunting and leaving behind the women and children in the charge of other males — and if there were other males who were known to be homosexual, then the dominant males would have trusted them not to mate with the females.” — Professor Richard Dawkins

“Being gay would have been a pretty good certificate that you can safely leave your women with me.” “If they were bisexual, that would have been the first assumption. We now have a way in which the gay gene would have been passed on.” — Professor Richard Dawkins

Once again this is not addressing the ‘gay gene’ at all. He’s still on the topic of men who have a sexual predilection towards females and males. There is no ‘gay gene’ being passed on. What we do have here are opportunistic men sleeping with women and children when their fathers/husbands were away hunting.

Notice that the homosexual man (whom Professor Dawkins was actually throwing a life vest) actually discarded Professor Dawkins’ theory altogether! He said from experience:

He says:

“I don’t know that, but it seems to be that a lot more women are bisexual. I can’t think of too many guys who start out as bisexual and then usually come out as gay later. Now there are men who are bisexual. I just think it’s a smaller percentage than people might think, just from my experience having met and been in the gay community, running organizations or meeting thousands of people over the years. I can’t think of too many people that hop back and forth.” — From the interview

Also notice the facial expression as the man begins to realize that Professor Dawkins hasn’t made a case for the ‘gay gene’ at all. At best he made a case for the ‘bisexual gene’.

We feel that Professor Richard Dawkins, with all his intelligence, also like many of us, doesn’t like being rebuffed. You can see this in his third response, in which he actually says “there really is no such thing as the gay gene.”

In the third attempt, Professor Richard Dawkins gives his weakest example yet, suggesting that this ‘gay gene’ manifests differently in different environments. He almost seemed to suggest that the homosexual in his scenario manifests in a world where we move away from breast feeding to bottle feeding.

The suggestion here is that at a very young age we moved away from the natural breast feeding to sucking on bottles — this carries heavy innuendo for those able to read between the lines. Finally, Professor Richard Dawkins submits: “There really is no such thing as the gay gene.” This may not go over very well with many in the LGBT+ community because what Professor Dawkins is saying is that environmental conditions, triggers, or learned behavior cause this to be expressed.

We think at this point the wise thing for Muslims who are trained in biology, Darwinian and Lamarckian evolution and so forth, is to be courageous enough to put forth the question:

“What is the Darwinian reason for possessing non-beneficial traits for reproduction and survival?”

For example, why are people born with achondroplasia or ‘dwarfism’? What about people who are born with poor eyesight? What about people who are born with genes that cause Down Syndrome, Hemophilia, Muscular Dystrophy, or Sickle Cell Anemia?

In what way does evolution favor such things?

“And we will surely test you with something of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth and lives and fruits, but give good tidings to the patient, Who, when under any condition say, “Indeed we belong to Allah, and indeed to Him we will return.” (Qur’an 2:155-156)

In other words, why can’t it be possible that being ‘gay’ or being ‘lesbian’ is either a genetic or psychological disorder? My understanding is that science is to be neutral and free of our societal pressures, as well as our own presuppositions.

Now what does the Qur’an say about same sex marriage?

“And do not approach unlawful sexual intercourse. Indeed, it is ever an immorality and is evil as a way.“ (Qur’an 17:32)

So two things to note here:

We are obviously not to do unlawful sexual intercourse.

We are not to even approach unlawful sexual intercourse.

The first one is very obvious. The second, however, has been governed by a whole set of ethos guided by the respective culture that one lives in. So not only is the act of unlawful sexual intercourse forbidden but any and all acts that lead up to it as well.

This is something that doesn’t have to be spelled out in minutiae. Human beings are intelligent, and that is why in Islam we are judged by the intentions behind every single action.

However, you can see guidance given by the Qur’an on this matter again:

“Tell the believing men to reduce some of their vision and guard their private parts. That is purer for them. Indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what they do. And tell the believing women to reduce some of their vision and guard their private parts.” (Qur’an 24:30-31)

This is a clear command not to look upon with lust those to whom we are not married, cannot marry, or have no intention of marrying. What is interesting is that men are told to reduce some of their vision but it is not said exclusively in reference to women, and women are told to reduce some of their vision and it is not said exclusively as a reference to men.

It is said as a general injunction and gives a strong indicator when the Almighty tells us ‘do not approach unlawful sexual intercourse’.

We feel it is worth mentioning here the following statement attributed to Christ Jesus in the Gospel according to Matthew.

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:27-28)

So what is unlawful sexual intercourse as defined by the Qur’an?

“And do not marry those women whom your fathers married, except what has already occurred. Indeed, it was an immorality and vile, indeed it was evil as a way. Prohibited to you for marriage are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your father’s sisters, your mother’s sisters, your brother’s daughters, your sister’s daughters, your milk mothers who nursed you, your sisters through nursing, your wives’ mothers and your step-daughters under your guardianship from your wives, unto whom you have gone in. But if you have not gone in unto them, there is no sin upon you. And also prohibited are the wives of your sons who are from your own loins, and that you take in marriage two sisters simultaneously, except for what has already occurred. Indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:22-23)

You cannot marry women your fathers married.

You cannot marry your mothers.

You cannot marry your daughters.

You cannot marry your sisters.

You cannot marry your aunts from either your mother or father’s side.

You cannot marry your nieces.

You cannot marry milk nurses who nursed you.

You cannot marry your maternal grandmother.

You cannot marry step-daughters that come under your ward from women who were previously married, widowed, etc.

You cannot marry the wives of your sons.

You cannot marry sisters. You have to marry one or the other.

Prima Qur’an Comments: One cannot fail to notice that the address is to men as to what type of women they cannot marry. Although no mention in the Qur’an at all about who the women can marry, in this text by inference or istidlal one can deduce that the reverse applies to women as well.

Examples:

You cannot marry brothers (because women have only one husband).

You cannot marry the husband of your daughter.

You cannot marry step-sons that come under your ward from men who were previously married or widowed.

You cannot marry your nephews.

You cannot marry uncles from either your mother or father’s side.

You cannot marry your maternal grandfather.

You cannot marry your brothers.

You cannot marry your sons.

You cannot marry your fathers.

You cannot marry men your mothers married.

Prima Qur’an comments: Likewise, the text did not explicitly mention not marrying one’s paternal grandmother or one’s paternal grandfather. However, through istidlal or inference we can deduce that it is similarly forbidden.

The above text is also not explicitly forbidding the following types of marriage.

The text above is not forbidding same sex marriage.We are not saying same sex marriage is not forbidden; We are simply saying the above text does not address it.

The above text does not address the issue of bestiality or humans who have a desire or inclination towards performing sexual acts towards animals.

The above text does not address necrophilia — the desire or inclination to perform sexual acts with the dead or dead bodies.

“And We had sent Lot when he said to his people, ‘Do you approach such sexual immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds? Indeed, you approach men with desire, along with and other than women. Rather, you are a transgressing people.'” (Qur’an 7:80-81)

The Arabic word ‘duni’ means that they had desire for both men and women as well as simply just men. This means both bisexual and homosexual desire.

Also note ‘latatuna’ — approach.

Now notice what this text is and is not saying. This text is addressing people who were ‘caught in the act’. There is no mention of anyone penetrating anyone. In fact it is much stronger than this. The text is giving strong condemnation of both bisexual and homosexual men who even approach men with the desire and passion to be with them.

Even in classical Shafi’i books of jurisprudence, it is disliked for a man to return or initiate a greeting of ‘as salamu ‘alikum’ to a boy youth who was considered to have effeminate characteristics or voice. This was done to avoid any passions being stirred.

“And mention Lot, when he said to his people, ‘Do you approach sexual immorality while you are seeing? Do you indeed approach men with desire other than/along with that of women? Rather, you are a people behaving ignorantly.'” (Qur’an 27:54-55)

Prima Qur’an Comments: Again notice the Arabic words: Do you approach (atatuna) and latatuna (approach). duni (instead of/along with) addressing bisexual men and homosexual men. It is very important to keep this in mind because if you are not allowed to approach men with sexual passion, then it stands to reason you are not allowed to engage in sexual acts with other men, and by that would mean to marry them.

Marriage in Islam serves three very basic objectives:

  • To have sex legally in a way that is blessed by the Creator.
  • To procreate the species.
  • To have a family unit that supports one another and shapes the next generation of human beings.

This does not mean that marriage cannot encompass companionship and objectives other than sex, procreation, or having a family.

As two men cannot have sex that is recognized as sacred in Islamic law, nor have any two men in the history of humanity ever produced another human being, they do not meet the basic objectives for a marriage.

What is also important as mentioned before is atatuna and latatuna — to approach.

The reason this is important is that often critics will focus on the act of ‘penetration‘ for men, and the reason for that is because where there is no penetration where women are concerned, there is no harm done. Yet, we can see that the two texts above mention simply approaching men with the intention and desire of lust for them.

As mentioned above when giving the categories of women that men cannot marry, it was also understood that similar categories applied to men that women cannot marry.

Likewise, as men are not to approach sexual immorality with men, it is understood that women are not to approach sexual immorality with women. This is through the principle of istidlal. Likewise, in any case, same sex marriage among women would not be able to meet the basic objectives of marriage:

  • To have sex legally
  • To procreate the species
  • To have a family unit that supports one another and shapes the next generation of human beings

Punishment for Homosexuality in The Qur’an?

As can be seen in the cases of the Prophet Lut (upon him be peace), in both cases Allah (swt) is fully capable of meting out punishment.

The punishment for any type of sexual immorality is mentioned here:

“The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication — flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day; and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.” (Qur’an 24:2)

There is no death penalty for homosexual acts in the Qur’an meted out by human beings. If four witnesses are produced and a man was found with a man or a woman with a woman or a man and woman who are unmarried, then the above prescribed punishment would be meted out.

Note The Qur’an does not condemn men living together with men, or women living together with women. What it does condemn is sexual immorality. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is between them and their Rabb.

Holding hands of the same sex.

It should be noted here that men who desire men and women who desire women are allowed to hold hands. This is because the punitive measures of Islam are only meted out based on the apparent and the obvious, whereas men and women who desire — or do not desire — each other of the opposite sex are to avoid unnecessary physical contact altogether, unless they are mahram.

This is a cultural practice that you commonly find throughout India, the Arab lands, and European nations influenced by Latin culture. Men holding hands with men is not something the Germanic and Nordic cultures in general embrace.

Other thoughts on the subject.

Possible wisdom/hikma in all of this?

Again keep in mind this is (the author of Prima-Quran) personal thoughts. They are based upon reason — which often can be flawed. It is possible that as a countermeasure to overpopulation, Allah (swt) in His wisdom allowed people to be born with such inclinations as a countermeasure to overpopulation. This is so the homosexual will not reproduce and thus prevent the species from being overpopulated.

It could be reasoned that without this trait, heterosexuals alone could put an enormous strain on the ecosystem, leading to species-wide extinction. Thus, species that are able to curb their reproduction to manageable levels are better able to survive.

What about the alleged injustice of this?

A person with gay/lesbian inclinations may argue, “It is not fair. Heterosexuals are allowed an outlet to express their sexuality and we are not.”

First of all, as mentioned above, there are people who are born into this world with all kinds of physical and psychological challenges. There are mothers who die in childbirth and children who are born with leukemia.

There are heterosexual people who cannot get married because of their financial challenges, or other restrictions imposed on them by parents, culture, and society.

There are heterosexual people who are divorcees or advanced in years — often society is not kind to them.

There are heterosexuals who get married and do not feel sexual gratification from their respective partners.

Likewise, being homosexual doesn’t guarantee one a partner or sexual gratification either. There are very many people in the homosexual LGBT+ community who are lonely and depressed. Like heterosexuals, they face the same stigma of being divorced, aged, and so forth.

As regards to what is just and what is not just, Allah (swt) reminds us in the revelation:

“He is not questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned.” (Qur’an 21:23)

So ultimately it is about filling our lives with those things which are meaningful, fruitful, and give us joy and bring joy to others within the parameters of Allah’s guidance.

It should also be remembered that the following promise is also true of all believers (even those believers who have inclinations towards the same sex).

So whoever you are, wherever you are right now, We would advise you to take solace in knowing that beings of light, the holy angels, are praying for your protection and your salvation by Allah’s permission.

“Those who bear the power and those around Him celebrate the praise of their Lord and believe in Him and ask protection for those who believe: Our Lord! You embrace all things in mercy and knowledge, therefore grant protection to those who turn (to You) and follow Your way, and save them from the punishment of hell.” (Qur’an 40:7)

What should be the attitude of Heterosexual Muslims towards Homosexuals (both Muslim and Non Muslim)?

First, keep in mind the following verses:

“If Allah were to punish men according to what they deserve, He would not leave on the back of the (earth) a single living creature: but He gives them respite for a stated Term: when their Term expires, verily Allah has in His sight all His Servants.” (Qur’an 35:45)

So this verse includes both heterosexual and homosexual. When it rains outside, it rains on all of us. We should always have mercy and compassion towards all human beings. We should call each other towards piety and patience. We should ourselves strive to be patient and upright.

As one shaykh said, “Do not look down upon people because their sins are different than yours.” In other words, we are all struggling. The highest struggle of them all is jihad an nafs (struggling with the inner self and one’s desires).

Perhaps we as Muslims also push people to sin because of our attitude towards them. Perhaps if more people in our community were not stigmatized for having various psychological disorders like bipolar, depression, or even certain sexual inclinations (homosexuality), these people would likely be more fruitful, productive members of the Muslim community, as well as living more wholesome lives in general if there wasn’t always condemnation waiting at the door.

People, human beings, have a desire to belong and be a part of something bigger than themselves.

So we feel as Muslims and as a community we need to make it abundantly clear. We do not embrace same sex marriages. We do not embrace the LGBT+ agenda. Marriage in Islam was, is, and always will be between a man and a woman. Those in our communities who force this upon us should be debated and repudiated with the utmost of intellectual vigor.

What about men and women with same sex inclination — should they be forced or pressured to marry the opposite sex?

The answer to that is absolutely not! This is part of the problem as mentioned above. You have people in the Indo-Pak, Arab, Malay, Turkish, and other Muslim communities who think the solution is to get their homosexual son or daughter married off! That is the worst possible thing they can do.

They are now forcing that person towards an inclination that they do not feel. Not only this, but it is totally unfair to the man or woman they are being married off to. Because believe us when we tell you, you are dooming such marriages to failure. You will have a partner who spiritually will be crushed and depressed and the other who will never feel sexual gratification because their partner is simply ‘not into it’.

First off, as a parent you should actually say, ‘Al hamdulillah.’ Why? Al hamdulillah that you have done such an amazing job as a parent that your son/daughter has felt comforted and confident enough to confide in you their inclination and their immense struggle with opposite sex partnership. Then you should encourage your son/daughter to be the best Muslim that they can be, enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong. To be healthy, happy, productive members of both the Muslim community and the larger communities to which they may belong.

Allah (swt) knows best, and the help of Allah (swt) is always sought.

Our Noble Shaykh and Teacher, Ahmed bin Hamad al-Khalili (hafidhahullah) has given a live telecast as well as publishing a book on the dangers of LGBT. This among other insidious trends of liberalism aims to destroy the family and go against the fitra.

d985d8aad989-d8aad986d8acd984d98a-d985d8b4d983d984d8a9-d8a7d984d8b9d8a7d984d985-d8a7d984d8a8d8b4d8b1d98a_Download

May Allah (swt) safe guard the family. May Allah (swt) grant us strong families. May Allah (swt) help us to have strong family bonds and to impart good character and conduct to our children! Amin!

“And we will surely test you with something of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth and lives and fruits, but give good tidings to the patient, Who, when under any condition say, “Indeed we belong to Allah, and indeed to Him we will return.” (Qur’an 2:155-156)

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

May 25, 2026 · 10:16 am

The four types of punishments every Muslim should be aware of.

“We will certainly test you with a touch of fear and famine and loss of property, life, and crops. Give good news to those who patiently endure—and in difficulty say, “Truly! To Allah we belong and truly, to Him we shall return.” (Qur’an 2:155-156)

﷽ 

The following is a summary of the four types of punishments.

Al-ʿAdhāb al-Adnā -The Lesser Punishment which typically refers to minor trials, afflictions, or punishments in this worldly life.

“And We will surely make them taste the nearer punishment before the greater punishment so that perhaps they will return.” (Qur’an 32:21)

An example can be something as seemingly trivial as one’s car not starting in the morning. One person might only look at the mechanics of this. The key is turning but no ignition. It is possible that on a metaphysical level this is for some sin the person committed. This can even be a common cold. This is known to be an expiation and a purification for the soul of the believer.

However, when you see someone who is stranded along the road, whose car has broken down, or they are ill or have a disease or lost a loved one or job we cannot say, ‘Ah this must be Allah is punishing this person’. No. This is not correct.

Because Allah (swt) also told us he will test us.

“Do the people think that they will be left to say, “We believe” and they will not be tried?” (Qur’an 29:2)

This is known as Ibtilah.

Al-ʿAdhāb al-Muḥeeṭ – The Lesser Punishment which overwhelms their self or wealth or at times thier health.

“And strike for them a parable of two men. We made for one of them two gardens of grapevines, and We surrounded them with palm trees and placed between them crops. Each of the two gardens yielded its produce and did not fall short in anything. And We caused a river to flow through them. And he had wealth. So he said to his companion while he was conversing with him, “I am greater than you in wealth and stronger in men.” And he entered his garden while wronging himself. He said, “I do not think that this will ever perish. And I do not think the Hour will occur. And if I should be brought back to my Lord, I will surely find better than this as a return.” His companion said to him while conversing with him, “Have you disbelieved in He who created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then fashioned you into a man? But as for me, He is Allah, my Lord, and I do not associate anyone with my Lord. And why, when you entered your garden, did you not say, ‘That which Allah wills [will come to pass]. There is no power except with Allah’? Although you see me less than you in wealth and children, it may be that my Lord will give me [something] better than your garden and will send upon it a calamity from the sky, and it will become a smooth, slippery ground. Or its water will become sunken [into the earth], so you will never be able to seek it.” And his fruits were encompassed [by ruin]. So he began to turn his hands about [in dismay] over what he had spent on it, while it had collapsed upon its trellises, and he said, “Oh, I wish I had not associated anyone with my Lord.” And there was for him no company to aid him other than Allah, nor could he defend himself. There, [all] authority belongs to Allah, the True. He is best in reward and best in outcome. (Qur’an 18:32-44)

You have to understand also the parable or the teaching of this verse. The second man thought about his lush, thriving garden that it will never perish, that perhaps there will be no end to it. The seasons and the cycles will continue on and on. So when the man’s garden did come to ruin, all the efforts simply collapsed. This was an analogy of his own life. That he (the keeper of the garden) will come to an end. So Allah (swt) let the reality sink in for this man. Before death overcame him.

“Indeed, We have tried them as We tried the companions of the garden, when they swore to cut its fruit in the morning, without making exception [i.e., without saying “if Allah wills”]. Then a calamity from your Lord passed over it while they were asleep. And it became as a garden stripped [of all fruit]. And they called out to one another at morning, “Go early to your crop if you would cut the fruit.” So they set off, whispering to one another, “No poor person shall enter it today against you.” And they went early in determination, [thinking themselves] able. But when they saw it, they said, “Indeed, we are lost! Rather, we have been deprived.” The most moderate of them said, “Did I not say to you, ‘Why do you not exalt [Allah]?'” They said, “Exalted is our Lord! Indeed, we were wrongdoers.” Then they approached one another, blaming each other. They said, “O woe to us! Indeed, we were transgressors. Perhaps our Lord will substitute for us [a garden] better than it. Indeed, we are towards our Lord desirous.” Such is the punishment [of this world]. But the punishment of the Hereafter is greater, if they only knew.” (Qur’an 68:17-33)

In this scenario the men above had an evil intention to go and cut their fruit so that the poor would not come and take it. Allah (swt) deprived them of the entire garden for their greed, and possibly put them in the same state as those seeking sustenance from their garden.

“It is He who enables you to travel on land and sea until, when you are on ships and they sail with them by a good wind and they rejoice therein, there comes a storm wind and waves come upon them from every place and they think that they are encompassed [by death], they call upon Allah, being sincere to Him in religion, “If You save us from this, we will surely be among the thankful.” But when He saves them, at once they commit injustice upon the earth without right. O mankind, your injustice is only against yourselves, [being merely] the enjoyment of worldly life. Then to Us is your return, and We will inform you of what you used to do.” (Qur’an 10:22-23)

Many people experience these situations. A scenario where you are certain that death is going to overcome you and yet Allah had restrained the jaws of death from taking you.

This is the case with Atheists, Muslims, Christians, Hindus or anyone else for that matter.

ʿAdhāb al-Halāk- The Punishment of Destruction.

This refers to catastrophic, annihilating punishments sent to disobedient nations in the past (e.g., floods, earthquakes, or storms) that utterly destroyed them. Like the case of Firaun. Death over came him and he is finished. There is no chance for him.

“And We took the Children of Israel across the sea, and Pharaoh and his soldiers pursued them in tyranny and enmity until, when drowning overtook him, he said: ‘I believe that there is no deity except the One in whom the Children of Israel believe, and I am of the Muslims.’” (Qur’an 10:90)

Al- ‘ Adhāb al-Akbar- The Greatest Punishment.

This refers to the eternal punishment of Hellfire in the Hereafter, which is vastly more severe than any earthly or lesser punishment.

“Our Lord, give them double the punishment and curse them with a great curse.” (Qur’an 33:68)

This is important to keep in mind when discussing aqidah (theological) points with Sunni Muslims.

First and foremost because their position on believers entering the hellfire or a kafir leaving hellfire has no basis in the foundational text of Islam. That is to say they have no evidence from the Qur’an.

Therefore they turn to the hadith. So not with standing the fact that each hadith brought forth as evidence has to be put to the test of all the rigors of hadith science one must be certain what punishment is mentioned in a hadith.

So for example. If someone were to bring a hadith that says the believer is punished before he/she enters the paradise. That person would first have to establish from the text that the punishment described is actually Al-ʿAdhāb al-Akbar before advancing it as evidence.

If they cannot prove that, then it is very possible that the punishment being described is talking about something other than hellfire.

Of course when engaging with the Sunni it always important to keep in mind two types. The Sunni Muslim that believes lone narrator reports or khabar ahad can convey certainty in theology (aqidah).

So for this person a single authentic hadith that states a believer will be in hellfire is sufficient for them.

Whereas a Sunni Muslim who believes the matters of theology (aqidah) need to be conveyed by mutawatir hadith weakening the mutawatir is enough to weaken their position.

You may enjoy the following articles:

What about all those hadith that promise a Muslim paradise based upon testimony alone?
I’ll go to hell for a little while and then enter heaven. Think again!

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

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

May 24, 2026 · 12:09 pm

The Eternal Word of Allah? Did Jesus pre-exist in Islam?

“Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, “Be,” and it is.” (Qur’an 2:117)

“And when your Lord took from the children of Adam – from their loins – their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying], ‘Am I not your Lord?’ They said, ‘Yes, we have testified.’ [This] – lest you should say on the day of Resurrection, ‘Indeed, we were of this unaware.'” (Qur’an 7:172)

﷽ 

Jesus (as) pre-exists in Islam the same way that you, the dear readers, pre-exist in Islam. Allah has knowledge of all things; However, eternal knowledge of a thing does not include the thing being eternal itself.

Jesus (as) is singled out as a word from Him due to the nature of his birth.

“Truly, the likeness of Jesus, in God’s sight, is as Adam’s likeness; He created him of dust, then said He unto him, ‘Be,’ and he was.” (Qur’an 3:59)

In other words, Jesus is a created word of Allah. “Be and it is” is an idiom for the expediency by which Allah brings something from non being into being.

Is Jesus the created word of Allah or the uncreated word of Allah?

“When the angels said, “O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word (bi-kalimatin) from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary – distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah]. (Qur’an 3:45)

Jesus (as) is a word from Him.

“And [the example of] Mary, the daughter of ‘Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into through Our angel, and she believed in the words (bi-kalimati) of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient.” (Qur’an 66:12)

Mary (as) is believing in the Lord and his words. Meaning they are not identical.

“O People of the Scripture do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and a word (kalimatuhu) from Him which He directed to Mary and a soul from Him. So, believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.” (Qur’an 4:171)

Jesus (as) is a word from Him.

“And if anyone of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the (kalam al-lahi) Words of Allah.” (Quran 9:6)

“Those who remained behind will say when you set out toward the war booty to take it, “Let us follow you.” They wish to change the (kalama l-lahi) Words of Allah.” (Quran 48:15)

All these words come from the same Arabic trilateral root.

ك ل م (kaf) (lam) (mim) Jesus is the created word of Allah (swt) just as The Qur’an is the created word of Allah (swt).  If someone were to believe that Jesus (as) is the uncreated word of Allah (swt), then that would be Christianity.  If someone were to believe that Jesus (as) is the created word of Allah (swt), that would be Islam and the path of safety.

One of our teachers has known people who left Islam for Christianity.

We have never heard of a Muslim who believes Allah (swt) alone is the Creator and everything else (including The Qur’an as being created) become a Christian. 

We do not doubt, respected reader, that after your acquaintance with the arguments and debates presented in this discussion on the issue of the Creation of The Qur’an, you will have realized that the correctness and safety lie in the belief that it is, like all other existing things, something other than Allah. It came into existence after it had not been. Whatever is like that, it is without doubt created. You will have realized also that this belief in its being eternal opens the door for those who believe in the possibility of multiplicity of the eternal to the extent that it leads to belief in the world’s being eternal.

Sunni Muslims often assume that everyone operates with the same definition and understanding of an attribute, even though these definitions were not explicitly given by the Blessed Prophet (saw) nor laid out in The Qur’an.

Sunni concept & Ibadi concept.


Sunni/Salafi: Attributes ascribed to His Self (Sifat Dhatiyyah).

Attributes ascribed to His Actions (Sifat Fi’liyyah).

Attributes ascribed to both His Self and His Actions. (Sifat Dhatiyyah Fi’liyyah).


Ibadi: Attributes are of two types: essential (dhatiyyah) and active (fi’liyya).

Sunni: Speech is an eternal attribute.
Ibadi: The power to produce is eternal (essential); the spoken revelation is created (active).

Sunni: The Qur’an is the attribute of speech.
Ibadi: The Qur’an is the product of the attribute of speech, not the attribute itself.

Sunni: “Attribute of Speech” = eternal, uncreated.”
Ibadi: “Attribute of Speech” = relates to Allah’s eternal power. Just like Allah’s ability to create = relates to Allah’s eternal power. However, Allah’s creation is temporal.

So when Sunnis say: “Either you believe one of Allah’s attributes is created and have likened him to creation, or you deny it being an attribute and reject Allah’s ability to truly speak.

We reply:

“We do not believe the attribute (power to speak) is created. We believe the product of that attribute (The Qur’an) is created. You have conflated the two. Your dilemma does not apply.

This is why we are not bothered when The Qur’an is referenced as the word of Muhammed (saw) or Gabriel (as) depending on the interpretation.”That this is verily the word of an honoured messenger.” (Qur’an 69:40)

“Verily this is the word of a most honourable Messenger.” (Qur’an 81:19)

Nor do we have problems with Jesus (as) being the Created word of Allah, as The Qur’an is the Created word of Allah.:

“The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and a word (kalimatuhu) from Him which He directed to Mary and a soul from Him”. (Qur’an 4:171)

If Jesus is called a “word” and is clearly created, then being designated as a “word of Allah” does not by itself imply eternality or uncreatedness. Therefore, the Qur’an can also be understood as a created word proceeding from Allah’s eternal power to speak.

Jesus is called ‘a word’ but no Muslim says Jesus is an attribute of Allah. Likewise, the Qur’an as a recited, sequential, Arabic text is a creation. What is uncreated is Allah’s eternal ability to speak, not any particular spoken thing.

Has that attribute of Allah entered into Creation?

Since the recited, audible, sequential Qur’an does exist in creation, it cannot be the eternal attribute itself. Therefore, what entered creation is created. The eternal attribute is simply Allah’s power to speak — which never “enters” anywhere, as it is not a thing but a capacity.

Honoured messenger.

By contrast, when Jesus is called “a word from Him” (kalimatun minhu) in Qur’an 3:45 or “His word which He cast unto Mary” in Qur’an 4:171. .The Qur’an too is a word from Him, either cast into Gabriel or Muhammed. Look at the verse of the Qur’an: “That this is verily the word of an honoured messenger” (Qur’an 69:40); see also Qur’an 81:19.

Thus, the disagreement is not really over whether 69:40 calls the Qur’an the word of a messenger. Both sides acknowledge the verse. The disagreement is over what follows from that fact.

The Sunni tradition says the verse concerns transmission, not ontology; the Ibadi argument says that once speech is spoken, revealed, and directed to creation, it is already an act and therefore created.

For example:

“And you did not kill them, but it was Allah who killed them. And you did not throw when you threw, but it was Allah who threw.” (Qur’an 8:17)

Key implications of this verse:

  1. The apparent human action is real — Muhammed (saw) did physically throw.
  2. But the creative origin is Allah’s — Allah created the act of throwing.
  3. The act itself is temporal and created — no one claims “the throw” is eternal.
  4. Attribution to the human does not negate creation — saying “Muhammed threw” is true in one sense, but ontologically the act is Allah’s creation.

“That this is verily the word of an honoured messenger.” (Qur’an 69:40)

Key implications of this verse:

  1. The apparent human/angelic speech is real — The messenger (understood by classical exegetes as Muhammed (saw) in Qur’an 69:40, and as Jibril (as) in Qur’an 81:19) did physically utter or convey these words.
  2. But the creative origin is Allah’s — Allah created the act of speech and the words themselves, just as He created the act of throwing in Qur’an 8:17.
  3. The act itself is temporal and created — No one claims “the utterance” or “the conveyed speech” is eternal. The messenger spoke it in time; it was heard, recited, and transmitted in time.
  4. Attribution to the messenger does not negate creation — Saying “this is the word of a messenger” is true in one sense (the messenger conveyed it), but ontologically the speech is Allah’s creation, just as the throw in Qur’an 8:17 is Allah’s creation despite being attributed to Muhammed.

You may also wish to read the following:

The Likeness of Jesus is like Adam
The Qur’an is created: Collection of Articles.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

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

May 23, 2026 · 8:21 am

The Ibadi follow the evidence that the Qur’an is created.

“He has created you (all) from a single soul; then made its mate from it. He has sent down (wa-anzala)eight types of livestock for you. He creates you in your mothers´ wombs, one creation following upon another creation in three [stages of] darkness. Such is Allah, your Lord. Control belongs to Him; there is no god except for Him. Yet you disregard [Him]!” (Qur’an 39:6)

“He has (nazzala) sent down upon you, [O Muhammed], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.” (Qur’an 3:3)

﷽ 

Shaykh Khalid Al Abdali (h) explains.

The Ibadi say that the Qur’an is created. What is your opinion on this, and what does it mean? What is the issue here? I hear people asking me: the Ibadi say that Allah brought the Qur’an into existence. So what is your opinion? It’s as if they are saying there are two groups: one group says that Allah Almighty brought the Qur’an into existence, and another group says that Allah did not bring the Qur’an into existence. So what is your view?

My view is that He brought it into existence, because creation — some people think creation means [something like] hair and blood. He created death. You know that death is a created thing among the created beings. Death, death, death, death is created. Alright.

Then he says: Is the Qur’an created or uncreated? What kind of question is this? This is a wrong question. Say to me: Did Allah send down the Qur’an or did He not send it down? I say to you: He sent it down, because we all believe that He sent it down, and it is His speech and His revelation, clearly.

Alright, let us focus on this issue: The Qur’an is the speech of Allah, without doubt. No one has a problem with that. I say that the Qur’an is the speech of Allah; Allah sent it down. Correct or not?

Do you have camels, cattle, sheep, goats in your country? Alright, did Allah send them down or create them? A little child, this young one, this offspring — did Allah create them or send them down? Look, if someone asks like this, what would you say? He would say, “He created them.” May Allah bless you. Since you answered, you first — Allah willing, you will read the verse for us. Give us the mushaf (Quran). He knows it by heart.

“I seek refuge with Allah from Satan the accursed. He created you from one soul, then made from it its mate, and sent down for you of the cattle eight pairs.” — Once with “sent down” and once with “created”? “Of the cattle eight pairs” — “sent down”? Or “created”? “Sent down, sent down, sent down” — or “created”? Let’s see. “Sent down” — “sent down” — “sent down.” He focuses on the question: “sent down” or “created”? “Of the cattle” — so He sent them down. When did you see this verse? First time you see it today? First time you focus on it, yes. Because I told you, many Muslims hear but do not read. Not him, but this is an example so you understand.

“Send down” — therefore, Ibn Kathir said regarding this verse: “Send down” means “created.” Something — the interpretation of Ibn Kathir here. Whoever wants to read: “And He sent down for you of the cattle eight pairs” — meaning He created for them from the cattle eight pairs. Enough, enough. “Send down” means “created.” Do you understand? Yes. Therefore, he is amazed at people who do not want to understand this issue. They may become fanatical — “not allowed,” “disbelief,” “not allowed,” “no way.” You say the truth, but you do not know. Emotion has taken you because so-and-so was imprisoned and beaten, then released. While so-and-so who said the opposite was imprisoned, beaten, slaughtered, and killed, yet you did not grieve for him, even though he was the one with the truth — you grieved for this one. Do you understand? Therefore, focus well.

The Qur’an — Allah Almighty brought it into existence. It did not exist, so He brought it into existence. Is it possible for Allah Almighty to have His life go away? Can a attribute of Him go away?

Some people say: The speech of Allah is an attribute of Him. Who told you — from your destruction? Listen. One day I ask: Do you know that one whose attribute is from his destruction? His speech — is it his speech or not his speech? He says: “It is an attribute of Him, from His attributes.” From his destruction, from His attributes. Why did he say? Because of His speech. And who told you that speech can be an attribute? Do you understand? Therefore, I give you advice: Most Muslims on earth say that the Qur’an is created, except a small group that terrorizes Muslims. They say “no,” and they clothe falsehood for people. Why? Because the Ash’aris — according to them — either the internal speech or the Qur’an. The internal speech is uncreated, but this Qur’an is created. They write this in their books. So this small group that dominates the world says to people regarding these Ash’aris: Are there two Qur’ans? Why? Because they say: “Internal speech” and “Qur’an” — internal speech is uncreated, and the Qur’an is created. Do you understand it? Cut.

Look, the issue of the creation of the Qur’an is not, meaning, of great benefit. Unfortunately, Muslims made it bigger than its actual worth. Had they remained silent and all said: “The Qur’an is the speech of Allah, Allah sent it down, His revelation” — enough, Almighty Allah speaks the truth — enough. But do not come and say to people: “Say ‘uncreated,’ and it is not allowed to say ‘created.’ No, no, I do not agree with you.” Let us agree together: “The Qur’an is the speech of Allah, His revelation, and His sending down. He sent it down, revealed it, and it is Allah’s speech.” Agreed? No problem. We stop here, and this belief accommodates all Muslims. Beware of saying to the one who speaks the truth that you are upon falsehood. Do you understand? Yes.

What is the reason? It is said: It was a Jew or a Christian — Abu Shakir al-Daysani — it is said it was one of them who said that Jesus is the word of Allah. So they said: If it (the word) is uncreated, then Jesus is uncreated. Thus, they confused the Islamic world.

Prima Qur’an comments: Online reference for Ibn Kahtir is the following:

https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/39.6

((And He has sent down for you of cattle eight pairs.) means, He has created for you from among the cattles, eight pairs. These are the ones that are mentioned in Surat Al-An`am, eight kinds — a pair of sheep, a pair of goats, a pair of camels and a pair of oxen.) -Tafsir Ibn Kathir.

For those who would like to read more on this subject you may enjoy the following:

The Qur’an is created: Collection of Articles.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

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

May 22, 2026 · 12:34 pm

Dismantling the Trinity: Jesus was never the only son.

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

﷽ 

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

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

It Explodes the “Eternal Generation” Framework

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christianity has three last stages until it is completely irrelevant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further evidence.

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

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

The case of John 1:18

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

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

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

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

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

Our second set of evidence from John.

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

Context.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The variant reading of John 9:35

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

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

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

This would include the following text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The evidence of Hebrews 1:5

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

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

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

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

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

This is a quote from

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

This text establishes four points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That Hebrew word in Pslams 2:7 is yalad.

yalad: To bear, bring forth, beget

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The variant reading of Acts 3:26.

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

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

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

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

Jesus was never the only Son of God.

Jesus was never the Son of God from eternity past.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Problem of “Firstborn” (Prōtotokos)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The baptismal announcement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Western Textual Variant for Luke 3:22

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

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

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

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

The case of Matthew.

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

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

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

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

The case of Mark.

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

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

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

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

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

The text of Mark 1:1.

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

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

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

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

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

Luke’s Harmonizing Strategy

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

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

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

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

The text of Acts 8:37.

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

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

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

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

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

Notice his response in the parallel accounts.

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

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

Here is the logical syllogism:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where are all these other names?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

May 21, 2026 · 2:04 am

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

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

﷽ 

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

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

Listen to the interaction in the video above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You may wish to read the following:

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

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

May 20, 2026 · 5:24 am

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

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

﷽ 

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

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

Describe them for me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You may also wish to read the following:

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

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , ,

May 19, 2026 · 1:19 am

Qur’an contradiction? What burdens do we bear?

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

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

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

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

﷽ 

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

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

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

Two additional translations of Qur’an 36:12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This has to do with our deeds!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You may wish to read the following:

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

May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah.

May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

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

May 18, 2026 · 2:30 pm

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

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

﷽

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

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

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

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

Are Christians out to create more atheists than believers?

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

The law that the Christians Jesus gave.

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

So let us analyze the text.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analaytical breakdown of Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

We can translate the text as:

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

or

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

The definition of na’arah here is:

a girl (from infancy to adolescence).

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

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

Few points of clarification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are many different translations of the text into English.

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

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

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

Notice the text says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look at what it says:

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

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

Terms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples of taphas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Example of anah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So this Christian cited the following text:

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

Such Christians are truly dark individuals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Betrothed vs. unbetrothed — the father’s property distinction

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

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

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

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

That is why:

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

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

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

The Septuagint — biasamenos (by force)

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

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

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

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

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

Shafi’i Muhaddith (Salah al-Din al-idlibi) questions age of Aisha in Bukhari

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

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

You may also be interested in reading the following:

The Question of Slavery & Milk Al Yamin In Islam.
The Age of Aisha and the Highly Detailed Qur’an?
The appropriate age for a female to marry and bear children according to the Bible.
The appropriate age for a female to marry and bear children according to Quran only

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

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