“Believe then in Allah and His Messenger, and in the light which We have sent down. Allah is fully aware of all that you do.”(Qur’an 64:8)
﷽
There is no denying the light that cascades across the floor. Indeed, many cathedrals are beautiful and breathtaking. Yet, no Muslim would deny that the teachings that take place in such buildings are teachings that mix light with darkness. It mixes haqq with batil. It mixes truth with falsehood.
“Do not mix truth with falsehood or hide the truth knowingly.” (Qur’an 2:42)
“They say, The Most Compassionate has offspring. You have certainly made an atrociousclaim, by which the heavens are about to burst, the earth to split apart, and the mountains to crumble to pieces. in protest of attributing children to the Most Compassionate.” (Qur’an 19:88-91)
There is a shared conceptual structure between Christian Logos theology, Neo-Platonic emanationism and the Sufi/Shi’i doctrines of Nūr i Muḥammed.
This is something alien to Islam.
Nūr i Muḥammed is a concept primarily within Sufi and some Shi’i traditions, designating Prophet Muhammed (saw) as the first creation and the primordial light from which the universe was created. It represents his inner, transcendent reality and spiritual essence rather than his physical humanity.
We see in the sacred text of the Christians the following beliefs.
Part of the Nicene Creed reads as follows:
“God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven.”
“For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” (Colossians 2:16-17)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. (John 1:1-8)
Contrary to what people think that the Qur’an being created is from Greek philsophy far from it. It is quite the opposite.
The position of the Sunni/Neo-Platonists. The Monad & the Logos
An uncreated ‘Kun’ by which everything else is created. The ‘kun’ acts as the intermediary between Allah, the transcendant and the material world.
However, the Sunnis believe that this uncreated ‘kun’ is not identical to the essence of Allah nor other than Allah’s essence. In our view, this is a step away from monotheism and a bridge towards Christology and logos theology.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
“Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” (John 1:3)
In our article here, we have shown that Jesus is not the eternal word of Allah. Jesus is the created word of Allah. Created from nothing “dust” and that which is created from dust or nothingness is not an attribute of Allah at all.
It is historically accurate to say that Christian theology has been heavily influenced by Platonic philosophy. We know this was the downward road in regard to their creed. So we now want to look at how such beliefs influenced certain strands of Islam.
As a reminder, our aqidah needs to be built upon the verses of the Qur’an. Those that are clear. Or it needs to be built upon the tawatur from the hadith.
And it dazzles the mind how those Muslims get accosted who say that Muhammed (saw) is only a man. They get accosted by those who hold fast to batini and esoteric doctrines. Well, if Muhammed (saw) is not only a man, then what is he? An angel? A demigod? A deity?
The same people do not seem to mind when we say about Jesus (as) that he is only a man. Even though Jesus (as) was born without a father.
“Say, “I am only a (basharun) man (mith’lukum)like you, to whom has been revealed that your god is one God. So whoever would hope for the meeting with his Lord – let him do righteous work and not associate in the worship of his Lord anyone.” (Qur’an 18:110)
“But now you seek to kill me, a man (anthropos) who has told you the truth which I heard from.” (John 8:40)
Question: What does the word Anthropos mean?
Answer: It means a mortal human being, full man. It distinguishes man from the animal kingdom on one hand and distinguishes man from a deity and divine essence on the other.
Anthropos is where we get the word anthropology, which means the study of man.
So this has not deterred those who wanted to bring Platonic Philosophy into Islam. In fact, it emboldens them. They reason well, Jesus (as) is anthropos, but he pre-existed as the word. So they reason that even if Muhammed (saw) is bashar, they can make him pre-exist as some eternal light.
What is interesting to note here is that nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus (as) say: “I am a man like you.” However, the text of the Qur’an is explicit. Muhammed (saw) is a man like us.
“And We sent not before you except (rijalan) men to whom We revealed [Our message]. So ask the people of the message if you do not know.” (Qur’an 16:43)
And We sent not before you, except men(rijalan) to whom We revealed [the message], so ask the people of the message if you do not know. We gave them not bodies that would not eat food, nor were they (khālidīna)immortals. (Qur’an 21:7-8)
khālidīna -this also means eternal. Jesus (as) is not the eternal word. Muhammed (saw) is not eternal light. Neither of them is eternal.
“The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger. messengers had gone before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They both ate food. See how We make the signs clear to them, yet see how they are deluded!” (Qur’an 5:75)
“And they say, “What is this messenger that eats food and walks in the markets? Why was there not sent down to him an angel so he would be with him a warner?” (Qur’an 25:7)
In fact, if we do not accept the fact that Muhammed (saw) is a man like us, then we are accepting the belief of the Mushriks, who are surprised that Allah (swt) sends a man that eats food and walks among them.
“They say, “Why has no angel come with him?” Had We sent down an angel, the matter would have certainly been settled, and they would have never been given more time. And if We had sent an angel, We would have certainly made it a man—leaving them more confused than they already are.” (Qur’an 6:8-9)
The verse above has the Mushrik asking why no angel was sent with Muhammed (saw). So they are making a contrast between the two.
If Allah (swt) sent an angel, there would be no more room to debate about anything. This clearly tells us that Muhammed (saw) is not an angel. Angels are those beings which are created from light.
And nothing has prevented people from believing when guidance comes to them except their protest: “Has Allah sent a (basharan) human as a messenger?” (Qur’an 17:94)
“They challenge, “We will never believe in you until you cause a spring to gush forth from the earth for us, or until you have a garden of palm trees and vineyards, and cause rivers to flow abundantly in it. Or you should cause the heaven to come down upon us in pieces as you think, or bring Allah and the angels face to face (with us). Or you have a house of gold or you ascend into the sky. And [even then], we will not believe in your ascension until you bring down to us a book we may read.” Say, “Exalted is my Lord! Was I ever but a human messenger?” (Qur’an 17:90-93)
They asked Muhammed (saw) the following:
Bring a spring to gush forth from the earth.
Bring forth gardens, palm trees and vineyards.
Cause rivers to flow.
Bring the heavens down.
Bring Allah and the angels face to face.
Have a house made of guild.
Ascend into the sky. -it is clear that Jesus did not do this either.
Bring us down a book.
Muhammed (saw) replied to this by saying: He was only a human (basharan) messenger.
“Say: I am no (bid’an)new thing among the messengers (of Allah), nor know I what will be done with me or with you. I do but follow that which is inspired in me, and I am but a plain warner.”(Qur’an 46:9)
If Muhammed (saw) is the first creation and primordial light, then he certainly is a new thing among the messengers, as this cannot be said about any of the messengers who have come before him.
Verses from the Qur’an that are used to try and prove Nūr Muḥammed.
“O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book.” (Qur’an 5:15)
mina l-lahi nurun wakitabun mubinun yahydi bihi from Allah a light and a book clear guides with it
The Qur’an is the light and a clear book. Allah guides with it, not with them(plural)
You may see how disparate translations render the Arabic into English.
“O mankind, there has come to you a conclusive proof from your Lord, and We have sent down to you a clear light.” (Qur’an 4:174)
bur’hanum min rabbikum wa-anzalna ilaykum nuran mubinan convincing proof from your Lord sent down to you a light clear
The Qur’an never references nazzala (sending down) to a human being ever! For example:
“Indeed, We have anzalna sent down to you the Book, in truth. So worship Allah , [being] sincere to Him in religion.” (Qur’an 39:2)
Rather, when speaking about prophets as messengers, Allah (swt) uses the word arsala (sent).
See: Qur’an 21:07Qur’an 33:45 and Qur’an 47:2
Allah (swt) tells us that the Qur’an is that light from Allah.
“And thus We have revealed to you an inspiration of Our command. You did not know what is the Book or [what is] faith, but We have made it a light by which We guide whom We will of Our servants. And indeed, you guide to a (siratin mus’taqimin) straight path.”(Qur’an 42:52)
“Believe then in Allah and His Messenger, and in the light which We have sent down. Allah is fully aware of all that you do.”(Qur’an 64:8)
Notice the text says believe in Allah and his Messenger and in the light. The text does not say believe in Allah and his Messenger, who is the light! Just as the wa distinguishes the Messenger from Allah, the wa also distinguishes the nur from the Messenger!
First it should be said that the Qur’an is sufficient in this regard. Anything that one would bring from the hadith would come to clash with the overwhelming flood of evidence that the Qur’an has established.
Secondly, it should also be stated that none of the evidence brought from the hadith amounts to tawatur and, therefore, it cannot be established as an aqidah point.
Nonetheless, we will look at the evidence one tries to establish from the hadith for Nur-Muhammed. The idea of Muhammed (saw) as the first creation and/or the primordial light from which the universe was created.
It would also clash with other lone narrator reports.
Umm Salamah narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
“Indeed you come to me with your disputes, and I am only a human being, perhaps one of you is more eloquent at presenting his argument than the other. If I judge for one of you, giving him something from the rights of his brother, then it is only a piece of the Fire that I am giving him, so do not take anything from it.”
The Messenger of Allah (saw) said prayer and he omitted or committed (something). Ibrahim (one of the narrators of this hadith) said: It is my doubt, and it was said: Messenger of Allah, has there been any addition to the prayer? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Verily I am a human being like you. I forget just as you forget so when any one of you forgets, he must perform two prostrations, and he (the Holy Prophet) was sitting and then the Messenger of Allah (saw) turned (his face towards the Qibla) and performed two prostrations.
It also contradicts other information from the Blessed Prophet (saw) about what was the first created thing.
Abdul-Wahid bin Sulaim narrated:
“I arrived in Makkah and met ‘Ata bin Abi Rabah. I said to him: ‘O Abu Muhammed! The people of Al-Basrah speak about Al-Qadar.’ He said: ‘O my son! Do you recite the Quran?’ I said: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘Then recite Az-Zukhruf to me.’” He said: ‘So I recited: Ha Mim. By the manifest Book. Verily, We have made it a Qur’an in Arabic that you may be able to understand. And verily, it is in the Mother of Book with Us, indeed exalted, full of wisdom. Then he said: ‘Do you know what Mother of Books is?’ I said: ‘Allah and His Messenger know better.’ He said:’It is a book that Allah wrote before He created the Heavens, and before He created the earth. In it, it is (written): Fir’awn is among the inhabitants of the Fire, and in it is: Perish the two hands of Abu Lahab, and perish he!’Ata said: ‘I met Al-Walid the son of ‘Ubadah bin As-Samit the Companion of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and asked him:’What was your father’s admonition when he died?” He said:”He called me and said: ‘O my son ! Have Taqwa of Allah, and know that you will never have Taqwa of Allah until you believe in Allah, and you believe in Al-Qadar- all of it-its good and its bad. If you die upon other than this you shall enter the Fire. Indeed I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying: “Verily the first of what Allah created was the Pen. So He said: ‘Write.’ It said : ‘What shall I write?’ He said : ‘Write Al-Qadar, what it is , and what shall be, until the end.’”
The Pen is presented as a created instrument for recording destiny. That is all.
The very first of what Allah created was the Pen.
None of the information that has been supplied mentions anything about spatiality.
So this leaves us with some points of discussion.
If spatiality is not a creation but something that co-exists with Allah. Then who or what creates spatiality? How do we square this with the belief that Allah creates all things?
If spatiality is a creation and the first thing that was created before spatiality was either the Pen or the Throne. This means that the Pen or the Throne existed prior to spatiality. Since we do not posit a place for Allah (swt), then one could conclude the Pen is like Allah (swt) in existing without a place.
The unresolvable tension in Neo-Platonic emanationism.
Neo-Platonic emanationism: The One is absolutely transcendent, beyond being, beyond space, beyond time. The first emanation (the Nous/Intellect) is the first thing that has being, but it exists in a framework of emanation that presupposes the One’s transcendence.
The Islamic doctrine of tawhid: “There is nothing like unto Him” (Qur’an42:11). Allah alone is eternal, uncreated, without beginning. Everything else is created, contingent, and shares no attributes of divinity.
If the Muhammedan Light or the Pen was created before space and time, then:
It exists in a state of non-spatial, non-temporal existence.
This is precisely the definition of divine transcendence. Existing without being located in space or time.
Something now shares this attribute with Allah.
“There is nothing like unto Him” is compromised.
When the Nūr Muḥammed doctrine claims:
“The first thing Allah created was the light of Muhammed”
It must then answer: Where did this light exist before space and time?
There are three possible responses, all of them problematic.
It existed in Allah. Something created existed within the divine.
It existed in a place. Which mean space is either uncreated (co-eternal with Allah) or the light created its own container (nonsensical).
It existed in no place and no time. The light shares with Allah the attribute of existing without spatial or temporal location. There is nothing like unto him now has an exception. The light is, in this crucial respect, like Allah.
There is no escape.
The Neo-Platonic Framework Collapses Under Islamic Premises
Neo-Platonism works because:
The One is beyond being, beyond even the category of “existence”
The Nous is the first being However, being is already a category that the One transcends.
The Nous is divine, and the system is not radically monotheistic.
But Islam does not allow:
Degrees of divinity.
A hierarchy of being where the first emanation shares in transcendence with that which is beyond being.
When Sufi metaphysicians attempted to import the Neo-Platonic structure while claiming to preserve tawhid, they created an unstable hybrid.
Evidences from the hadith that are used to try and prove Nūr Muḥammed.
The first hadith evidence that is used.
Narrated Abu Hurairah:
“They said: ‘O Messenger of Allah (saw)! When was the Prophethood established for you?’ He said: ‘While Adam was between (being) soul and body.'”
This above hadith mentions nothing about when the Prophet (saw) was created or what he was created from. It simply establishes that the office of Prophethood was ordained for him. This the more straightforward and textually responsible reading. The plain sense of the text is about foreknowledge and divine decree, not ontological pre-existence.
The second hadith that is used.
He relates from Jabir ibn Abdullah who stated:“I said, ‘O Messenger of Allah (saw)! May my mother and father be sacrificed for you, tell us of the first creation which Allah created before everything?’ The Prophet saw answered, ‘O Jabir! Indeed Allah created before everything the light of your Prophet from His light.”
Source: (Al-Musannaf Abdur Razzaq, pp. 63, Hadith 18)
This hadith is fabricated (mawḍū’)
The consensus is that it has no sound chain of transmission (sanad) and was falsely attributed to the Prophet (saw).
Bring us an authentic chain for this hadith.
The most dangerous aspect of the above hadith is the wording, “from His light” (min nūrihī). This can be dangerously understood to imply that the Prophet (saw) is a part of Allah or that Allah’s essence is divisible. A concept fundamentally opposed to Islamic monotheism (tawhid).
It is challenging to take seriously the claims of anyone who says they defend (tawhid) and expresses the above view.
Such groups who advocate this are like the mysterion cults. They hold that such sacred truths are revealed but cannot be fully understood by reason. They need esoteric (obscure) explanations or can only be explained via esoteric rituals that are not within the grasp of the uninitiated. The contradictory nature is laid bare for all to see. If that is the case, then you do need recourse to proof text. You simply need aprior convictions.
One of our team members was introduced to a Sufi Tariqa in which one of its members approached them asking about how they understood Nur i Muhammed. The follower of this Tariqa said: “The light of Allah is Allah!”
So how does this Nur of Muhammed (saw) actually work?
If you are involved in Sufism or Sufi Metaphysics, it is usually taught that this light enters into Adam.
Then it is passed from Adam to his son Seth. It goes all the way to Nuh. Then, at this point, something crucial happens. The light is passed onto Nuh’s son Sam (Shem). The Semetic people and his other son, Ham (Hamitic) people, receive a curse. Physically portrayed by being black-skinned.
It continues until it reaches Abrahams son (Isma’il). Now we get into a conundrum here. It cannot go through the son Ishaq because this line stops at Jesus (as) who had no children.
So it now passes through (Isma’il). But now we face another problem.
Historically speaking, there is a span of approximately 2,500 to 2,700 years between Isma’il, peace be upon him (born c. 2000s B.C.E.) and Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him(born 570 C.E.). While Islamic tradition holds that Muhammed is a direct descendant of Isma’il, historians and early genealogists note that there is no continuous, verified, or documented written record for this connection.
Also, on top of that, it must be affirmed that for that span of 2,500 years, that entire line maintained a belief in perfect monotheism.
Critique of Esoteric Cults and Genealogy
Where this becomes a source for cults and manipulation. If you continue to hold that this nur i muhammed travels through his descendants, then not only are the descendants superior to you via bloodline, but they are metaphysically superior to you based upon this esoteric reality.
This has become a source of manipulation and abuse in many circles. A person who is claimed to possess such attributes becomes a deity in their circle. Unchallenged and unquestioned. The least infraction can bring wrath and damnation down upon one. If the Imam, Qutb (or Ghawth) is caught up in sexual impropriety, molestation, physical abuse and or squandering of funds, any whistleblowers would be shamed into silence.
The Ibadi school shuts the doors to these esoteric beliefs which have no firm basis in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Exploitation of people cannot come about through presumed superior metaphysical personages.
Put yourself for a moment in the position of a 7th century Bedouin hearer, the idea that Muhammed (saw) pre-existed as a cosmic light, or that there exists a “Muhammedan Reality” that is the first emanation and the instrument of creation, would have sounded unfamiliar. Perhaps dangerously close to what they had just been taught to reject about Arab polytheism (where lesser deities mediated between the high God and the world) and Christianity (where the Logos became flesh).
In the end, what is needed for the Muslims is a return to purity in creed. A creed based upon the firm and clear text of the Qur’an and the mass transmitted testimony of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
You may also be interested in reading the following:
“We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures.” (Quran 21:107)
﷽
The Mufti of Oman, Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (H) has informed us:
“Celebrating the birth of the Prophet ﷺ was not practiced during the time of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), nor during the time of the Successors (tābi‘īn), nor during the time of the successors of the Successors (atbā‘ al-tābi‘īn). Most likely, this celebration began during the era of the Fatimids. It is said that their intention behind this celebration was to deflect accusations that they were not truly Muslims. There is much discussion about the Fatimids. Some even refer to them as the “ʿUbaydīs”. Though they attributed themselves to Fāṭimah (may Allah be pleased with her) and thus were called “Fāṭimids.” Yet, many exaggerations surrounding them go so far as to take them outside the fold of Islam. For example, some said about al-Muʿizz al-Fāṭimī: “Whatever you will happens, not what fate decrees; you rule, for you are the One, the Subduer.” This is evidence that those people were far from Islam and from the oneness of Allah, as this is deification of human beings.”
“They were the first to introduce the celebration, and Muslims later adopted it from them. Perhaps the desire to celebrate the Prophet’s birthday was in order to remind people of this great blessing. The blessing of Allah sending His Messenger ﷺ to us. However, we must consider several important factors. Among these is that people, in commemorating the Prophet’s birth, have attributed sanctity to human-authored texts recounting the story of the noble birth. They came to revere such writings as if they were the Qur’an itself, and this is impermissible. Nothing is sacred except the words of Allah. As for the words of the Prophet ﷺ, when we read them, it is for the sake of deriving benefit and guidance; reading them in itself is not an act of worship. If someone who does not understand the Prophet’s words were to recite them thinking it was an act of devotion, it would not count as worship. Unlike the Qur’an, whose recitation is worship whether one understands it or not.”
“Therefore, attributing sacredness to anything other than the words of Allah is problematic. If the celebration is meant to remind people of this great blessing, then one should not be bound to a single text authored by a person centuries ago as though it were a chapter of the Qur’an. Rather, the occasion can be connected to present-day circumstances. What the community needs to draw from this remembrance, such as reviving the call to Islam and renewing the message. This can be done by giving lectures, enlightening people about this blessing, and renewing the spirit of the message according to the needs of the time.”
“At the same time, all that contradicts the Sharīʿah in such celebrations must be avoided. Gatherings involving drums, dancing by men and women, and similar practices are contrary to Islamic teachings. These must be avoided. Likewise, the extravagant spending of large amounts of money on such occasions does not please the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. These funds would be better spent on things that benefit the Muslim community. Excessive decoration and lavish displays are also not a proper way of honoring the Prophet. These are matters that must be carefully avoided.” -The Mufti of Oman, Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (H)
Prima Qur’an comments:
So there is no need for people to try and justify this practice to the people on the basis of what the early generation did or what the Blessed Prophet (saw) ordered us to do.
If people celebrate to remember the blessings of the Blessed Prophet (saw), by giving lectures etc then this is not something in our estimation that is totally forbidden.
Celebrating the birth of the Blessed Prophet (saw) with speech, and poems has become ‘urf (culture/custom). -It does not violate Islamic Principles.
Do we become the beloved of Allah (swt) by following the beloved of Allah (swt).
Celebrating the birth of our noble Prophet (saw) Say, “If you ˹sincerely˺ love Allah, then follow me; Allah will love you and forgive your sins. For Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 3:31)
We do not believe such celebrations should be done with haram music, dancing or free mixing. This time is used to send abundant blessings down upon the Blessed Prophet (saw) and used as a time to reflect on rather or not we become the beloved of Allah (swt) by following the beloved of Allah (swt).
#متابعات أحيت منارة الاستقامة لتعليم القرآن الكريم وعلومه بمدينةنالوت بالأمس ذكرى #المولد_النبوي_الشريف ضمن البرنامج الذي أعلن عنه مكتب أوقاف #نالوت حيث ألقيت بعض الكلمات بمناسبة هذه الذكرى الجميلة كما تخلل هذه الأمسية بعض القصائد والأناشيد والمدائح النبوية. @Taha_Asker12 pic.twitter.com/kMeVcCZDvp
Often in Oman, Sunni and Ibadi come together to celebrate the Maulid
“Indeed, in the Messenger of Allah you have an excellent example for whoever has hope in Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah often.” (Qur’an 33:21)
و كان نبينا صلى الله عليه وسلم يتسابق في طاعته القرشي والحبشي و الفارسي و الرومي يذكر اسمه فتفيض العيون بالدمع، وتورد أحاديثه فتجيش الارواح بالشوق، له في كل مكان أتباع، وفي كل بلد أنصار، وفي كل قطر محبون، يدوي اسمه في الأذان وفي المنائر، ويذكر على المنابر، ويدرس في الدفاتر،… pic.twitter.com/3HQWoiCazd
Some of the justifications that we use to allow the practice are as follows:
“And as for the blessings of your Lord, speak of them” (Qur’an 93:11)
Is not the birth of the Blessed Prophet (saw) a blessing to humanity?
It heralds the arrival of Allah’s beloved.
It is a way to convey the message of Muhammed (saw).
It is a way to send blessings and peace upon him.
A way to adhere to his love and follow what he (saw) brought.
This entry is quite short because it is not a hair splitting issue for us. Our scholars are very clear that we do not have records of the early generations celebrating this. This is something from ‘urf that the people love to do out of their burning love for Allah’s beloved.
Those who do not participate are not looked down upon. Those who wish to participate are received warmly.
Say, “O People of the Book! Let us come to common terms: that we will worship none but Allah, associate none with Him, nor take one another as lords instead of Allah.” But if they turn away, then say, “Bear witness that we are Muslims.” (Qur’an 3:64)
﷽
The Eastern Orthodox are a type of hydra where their views on Islam depend on the geo-political climate. insh’Allah we will come to this later.
The global Eastern Orthodox Church is organized into 14 universally or widely recognized self-governing (autocephalous) regional churches. Listed in traditional order of seniority (the diptychs), they include nine traditional patriarchates, the Georgian catholicosate, and five autocephalous national or regional churches. The 15th and 16th churches are a matter of internal dispute among the Eastern Orthodox Church.
1. His Holiness Patariach Bartholomew of The Church of Istanbul. (Turkey)
As he is called, ‘The first among equals’ Patriarch Bartholomew is the Patriarch of Istanbul. He oversees the community of Orthodox Christians in Turkey. However, his title within his circle is Patriarch of Constantinople.
It has come to our attention is that his holiness Patriarch Bartholomew has recently claimed that ‘At the cewntre lies the Sacred itself, the ultimate, absolute reality, which is expressed in various ways, as God, Allah,
There is also an eye opening quote from an early Church Father that is worthy of a repost here:
“As the Great Cappadocian Father of the Church, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, teaches, it is impossible for anyone to ascend to that height where the light of truth is seen, unless the dead and earthly garment of skins is stripped away from the foundations of the soul… This is truly that which really exists, and the understanding of this is the knowledge of truth.”
as well as:
“The loss of the relationship with the Sacred translates into a loss of the bonds that constitute society, leaving behind it a sum of individuals in competition.”
2. Theodoros II, the Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa. (Egypt)
The Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria has said:
“The Orthodox and Muslims are “brothers under the same sky,” «είμαστε αδέλφια κάτω από τον ίδιο τον ουρανό»
3. Patriarch John X Yazigi, whom is called Patriarch of Antioch and All the East. (Syria)
In a meeting with the Greek Orthodox Patriarch John X Yazigi, Syrian President Ahmad Al-Sharaa was presented with a copy of the “Ashtiname of Muhammed”, a document said to be written by Ali ibn Abi Talib in 632 CE on behalf of Prophet Muhammed (saw), which pledges protection for the Christians of the time.
The meeting between the leaders took place in Damascus on Sunday 26 October.
Patriarch Jonhn X Yazigi the Patriarch of Antioch and all the East has said this about Muslims.
“To start, we would like to direct our warmest greetings to the Syrian people as a whole and our Muslim brothers in particular on the occasion of Eid el-Adha. Many happy returns..”
“We as Christians live beside our Muslim brothers in these lands. Nothing separates us from them.”
“When the late Fares al-Khoury was asked about “the protection of Christians”, he quickly took to the pulpit of the Umayyad Mosque and said, “As a Christian member of parliament, I reject French or English protection and I ask the protection of my brothers who are praying with me in this mosque.” This is our history and this is what we continue to affirm always. There are many people with other goals who are trying to spread other ideas, but adversity brings forth real men and we are not afraid.”
4. Patriarch Theophilos iii of Jerusalem and all holy lands. (Palestine)
“He stressed his condemnation of insulting the Islamic faith with the same vigor of condemnation as he would if the insult afflicted any of the other monotheistic religions.”
“Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem – Chairman of the Council of Heads of Churches of the Holy Land, denounced the unfortunate sequence of events in France, which started with insults to Islam and the honorable Prophet Muhammed, and was followed by a murder crime of a teacher on the hands of three students as a retaliation for the insults , which triggered a series of unfortunate crimes that targeted innocent Muslim civilians.”
5. Patriarch Kirill (Cyril) of Moscow and all Rus’. (Russia).
The respected and honourable Patriarch Cyril has said:
“поэтому всего сердца молитесь просите У Господа помощи Я знаю что здесь и христиане и мусульмане каждый обращается к одному и тому же Богу творцу и вот в ответ на это мы получаем реальную Божью помощь.” This is translated as:
“Therefore, pray with all your heart, ask the Lord for help. I know that here there are both Christians and Muslims. Each turns to the same God, the Creator. And in response to this, we receive real help from God.”- Patriarch Cyril of Moscow and all Rus.
6. Patriarch Porfirije. Patriarch of Serbia. (Serbia)
Patriarch Porfirije of the Serbian Orthodox Church Patriarch Porfirije congratulates Muslims on Kurban Bayram(Eid Al Dha). He says:
“On the occasion of the forthcoming Kurban Bayram, We extend Our most sincere congratulations to all faithful of the Islamic religion, with cordial wishes that the All-Merciful Creator may grant them blessing and spiritual strength, and that they may celebrate this great feast with their loved ones in peace, health, and prosperity. May the days of Kurban Bayram, inspired by the steadfast faith of the forefather Abraham, strengthen faith in God and be filled with understanding and mutual respect, in the spirit of the exalted traditional values that this feast embodies.”
7. Patriarch Daniel . The Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church. (Romania)
When receiving a diplomat from Iran the Patriarch pointed out that onyx imported from the Islamic Republic of Iran was used in the arches of the iconostasis doors of the National Cathedral. He maintains cordial relations with Muslims.
9. Patriarch Shio III born Elizbar Mujiri head of the Georgian Orthodox Church (Georgia)
He has only recently been elected. He will most likely follow diplomatic protocol of those who came before him. His huge concern seems to be the rise of abortion and lgbtq activism in Georgia.
10. Archbishop of Nova Justiniana and All Cyprus.
One can say that his attitude towards Islam and Muslims is hostile. This is primarily coloured by the disputes between Turkey and Greece over Cyprus.
11. Archbishop Ieronymos II. Archbishop of Athens and All Greece. (Greece).
His view and position is notably hostile towards Islam and Muslims.
Here is a video of his statements:
12. Archbishop Sawa Archbishop of Warsaw and Metropolitan all of Poland. (Poland)
To our knowledge there really is no negative or positive statement towards Islam and/or Muslims. Muslims are an extreme minority in Poland. Poland for the most part is a homogenous society with the exception of being divided among Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic.
13. Joani (Joan), Archbishop of Tirana, Durrës and All Albania, Exarch of Illyricum. (Albania)
It is claimed that he was born into a non-practicing Bektashi “Muslim” family (a Sufi Islamic order prominent in Albania) under the country’s strict communist regime, before secretly converting and baptizing into Christianity in 1979. We use “Muslim” as we do not recognize the terminology of non-practicing Muslim. The term is an oxymoron. We want to draw attention to this. He was brought up in a secular household with secular values that had cultural attachments to Islam.
Nonetheless he has maintained cordial relations with the Muslim community. Congraulating the believers on the occasion of Eid al Fitr.
14. Rastislav Archbishop of Prešov, Metropolitan of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. (Czech Republic and the Republic of Slovakia).
To our knowledge there really is no negative or positive statement towards Islam and/or Muslims. To our knowledge the Muslim communities in the Czech Republic and Slovakia are quite small. They are mostly homogenous socities. The bigger divide being between Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox.
15. This one we really cannot grant because the Eastern Orthodox Church has not been guided by the Holy Spirit in this matter. They have no consensus on either the status of the The OCA (Orthodox Church in America), as being self governing or a branch of the Russian Orthodox Church.
The OCU (Orthodox Church of Ukraine) is also one disputed in general.
So the Eastern Orthodox Church has not reached a consensus on the recognition of either as being a
It is divided on rather or not the OCA or OCU can be universally counted as the 15th autocephalous church.
Recall our statement: The Eastern Orthodox are a type of hydra where their views on Islam depend on the geo-political climate.
This is true. Those churches who live under the authority of Muslim majority governments, or have family members who have married among the Muslims have positions that are more cordial.
The history of the Ottoman empire invites different responses as we saw from the Bulgarian, Romanian, Greek and Cyprus churches.
Accordingly, the Patariach Bartholomew of The Church of Istanbul as well as Patriarch Kirill (Cyril) of Moscow and all Rus’ have all but confirmed that the Allah of Islam is the same God that Christians worship.
Eastern Orthodox laity and catechumen should be very careful to watch their words concerning Allah (swt). Until their is a council that is convened and the 14 churches come to an agreement on thier position in regard to Allah (swt) it cannot be said that the Eastern Orthodox Church has an ‘offical position’ for or against.
What would be akward however, is that Eastern Orthodox Christians in Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey and other places very often use the word Allah in their liturgy and day to day worship.
“Have they not travelled throughout the land so their hearts may reason, and their ears may listen? Indeed, it is not the eyes that are blind, but it is the hearts in the chests that grow blind.” (Qur’an 22:46)
“When they listen to what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears for recognizing the truth. They say, “Our Lord! We believe, so count us among the witnesses.” (Qur’an 5:83)
[Click on the image above. Tthen right click that image and select open image in new tab. Ctrl and mouse wheel or Ctrl and +,- to zoom in/out.] Voila!
May Allah (swt) guide the sincere Christians to the truth and save them form the torment of the hellfire.
They say, “Be Jews or Christians [so] you will be guided.” Say, “Rather, the (millata)religion of Ibrahim, inclining toward truth, and he was not of the (l-mush’rikina) polytheists.” (Qur’an 2:135)
“Knower of the unseen, disclosing none of it to anyone, except messengers of His choice. Then He appoints angel-guards before and behind them.” (Qur’an 72:26-27)
﷽
It was recently brought to our attention that when discussing the reliablity and transmission of the hadith that Profressor Fred Donner made the following comment:
@1:45
“But even in those collections of sound hadiths, there are many that we know MUST be fabricated, wherein the Prophet is seen as predicting things that happened two hundred years after his death.”
Ah yes, Fred. Prophets could never predict the future!
At least, here he has revealed himself. This is the problem and it shows his bias and his presupposition.
Donner’s argument is epistemologically circular: he assumes prophecy is impossible, and then uses that assumption to dismiss any hadith that contains a prophecy. To a believing Muslim, this is not historical criticism; it is secular dogmatism masquerading as neutrality. Far from academic.
Donner’s methodological reductionism rests on an epistemologically circular assumption that disqualifies it from serious historical consideration.
If Profressor Fred Donner is interested in engaging with Islamic scholarship on the following:
Epistemology: How do we know what we know? Or if we would like to debate Islamic scholarship on Metaphysics.
Then insh’Allah Islamic scholarship would welcome such an inquiry.
Profressor Donner’s book: ‘Muhammed and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam’ is a brilliant book of fiction. It is perfectly digestible for his liberal and left leaning audience.
One wonders how he would have written to an audience in India or Japan.
Reminder that a comprehsive and holistic reading of the Qur’an leads one to conclude that…
And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women-if you doubt, then their period is three months, and those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah-He will make for him of this matter ease.” (Qur’an 65:4)
“Test the orphans, until they reach balaghu; then, if you perceive in them the right judgment, deliver to them their property; consume it not wastefully and hastily ere they are grown. If any man is rich, let him be abstinent; if poor, let him consume in reason. And when you deliver their property to them, take witnesses over them; Allah suffices for a reckoner.”(Qur’an 4:6)
“Trust in the LORD with all your heart; do not depend on your own understanding.” (Proverbs 3:5)
﷽
A very interesting exchange happened recently between leading Roman Catholic apologist, Trent Horn and Protestant that believes in a 66 book canon, Kelly Powers.
Trent Horn got the Protestant to admit:
“ But is there a verse that directly says a 30-year-old can’t marry? There’s no verse that says that. But our conscience, your conscience knows that’s wrong.” -Kelly Powers.
The basis for a 30 year old not marrying a 10 year old is one’s conscience in the year 2026. Not a universal moral law for all times and places but a person living in 2026.
The key take away is that there is no clear biblical text that gives the age for marriage.
@17:32 minutes: “What was a couple examples? One of them was, “Well, can can a can a Christian can a person marry their first cousin?” Now, off the top of my head, when you’re doing something live, many of you probably have done, you know, if you do a live stream, sometimes you don’t remember something right off the cuff, right? I mean, if I asked all of you out there, where where is the scripture that says directly that you are to be marrying your close relatives? Some of you might get it right off the cuff. Some of you might have to go Google it, right? I forgot about Leviticus 18. I forgot about Leviticus chapter 20 that actually addresses that you are instructed not to marry your close relatives. Well, that would also include your cousins. That’s relatives, right? So, this is what you know the Bible does talk about that, right? Now, the issue of a 30year-old marrying a 10year-old, right? Well, if you look historically, even you going back to around the 12th century or so or early back in the day, the Roman Catholic Church actually approved of children who were 12 years girls and 14 years of age boys that were actually being married back in those days as early as young as 12. Right? So even the Catholic Church historically has given um the acceptance of young children being married at a certain age, right? But now is this morally acceptable? Right? Like in our day and age, you look historically with culture thousands of years ago, different ages, different people would be married, younger ages, right? But we live in a very different society today, right? We also got to follow what the government according what uh Romans 13 also instructs for us today.” -Kelly Powers.
@2:03:36 minutes: “I did not expect the conversation to go the way that it really did. I didn’t expect I expected Trent to come to defend his views of what he believed and what he has said, but I didn’t expect the disrespect for the authority of the word of God. I didn’t expect the attacks on Sola Scriptura and he was using these shock questions to try to attack Sola Scriptura and I addressed those questions earlier. About you know, what can you be married to your your first cousin and the bible says no. Uh Leviticus 18 Leviticus 20 actually warns about that; so that’s the answer is no. What about the issue of marrying ya know a 10-year-old can a 30year-old year-old marry a 10-year-old, right? And I said, well, my conscience, right, would say no, right? But he’s like, well, what what about the age? Who who are we to say? Right? And what I highlighted earlier is if you look, you can just do a Google search on this. I don’t want to, you know, waste. You can do your grok chat GPT, Google search, whatever. thousand plus years ago, thousand something years ago, 1,200 something AD, the Catholic Church actually approved of girls at the age of 12 being married to 14year-old boys? That was okay. Right? Now, the question is, well, could a 12-year-old be married to a 30-year-old? Well, what’s the difference? Right? So culturally we see historically different cultures have different ages throughout time. Governments impose their laws. We also have to render to Caesar what’s Caesar’s as well. Right? But is there a verse that directly says a 30-year-old can’t marry? There’s no verse that says that. But our conscience, your conscience knows that’s wrong.” -Kelly Powers.
This was the exchange between Trent Horn and Kelly Powers here:
@44:05 minutes:
Trent Horn: Where does the Bible say?
Kelly Powers: It doesn’t say. We’ve already went round and round on this, Trent. We’ve already went over this.
Trent Horn: So, some things are gravely sinful that aren’t in the Bible.
Kelly Powers: There’s some things that our conscience will tell us, yes, that are not right. That God has given us a conscience, right? Obviously, a 10-year-old is a child. Number one, a 10-year-old can’t produce proper babies. Number two,
Trent Horn: I said precocious puberty.
Kelly Powers: So you’re making a false excuse to try to justify your means there. Point here is we know adults get married when they’re adults, right? That’s how it normally works.
Trent Horn: Can a 16 year old get married?
Kelly Powers: So you’ve been not able to prove your assertion. Number two, you can’t prove this is a sin. And number three, you’re still justifying your language. And then you smile about it, which is hilarious.
Trent Horn: Language. What inappropriate language did I use? I asked about a particular act, a particular kind of marriage. And I just wanted you to tell me if it was sinful. You said it is sinful. I agree with you.But the problem is,
Kelly Powers: What did I say was sinful?
Trent Horn: Being married to a 10-year-old. You said that was sinful.
Kelly Powers: Okay. To be clear, yeah, I don’t think that would be right. Correct. That’s my problem. I don’t see any chapter and verse. I don’t believe that would be appropriate. Yes.
Trent Horn: And you believe, well, look, God told me in my conscience this is wrong, and that’s why you believe it’s wrong.
Kelly Powers: Well, when I look at scripture, it talks about a husband and wife being one. They leave their father and mother. There’s a certain kind of guidelines that give this indication that they’re going to be a young adult, not a child.
Trent Horn: Okay. So, could it be a 14-year-old wife,
Kelly Powers: Like Mary when she was young? Is that what you’re trying to say?
Trent Horn: Yeah, sure. 13 or 14.
Kelly Powers:Sure.
Trent Horn: How about 12?
Kelly Powers: Again, come on, Trent.
Trent Horn: 12. Just a 12-year-old.
Kelly Powers: We’ve already went through that. I don’t know the actual age, but we’re talking a young adult, not a child, right?
Trent Horn: You’re saying where does the Bible say all this stuff? This is just your opinion.
Kelly Powers: Of course. Now, well, not necessarily. According to, if I understand correctly, Jewish culture and law, a young man is at the age of 13 or 14, right? When does a woman become a young woman?
Trent Horn: I don’t know. It probably changes.
Kelly Powers: I believe around the age of 14 as well. This is going by memory.
Prima Qur’an comments: Dear brothers and sisters do you know how revealing all of this is? Christians are also having a meltdown over this. What Trent Horn said is correct. He knows that the Bible gives no explicit text stating the correct age (number of solar rotations) to get married. Kelly Powers has argued with many opposing Christian groups. You saw clear as day he did not run to a particular verse. He even agreed with Trent who posed: “13 or 14” to which Kelly replied: “Sure”.
It was only when Trent pressed further with the age of 12 that Kelly somehow felt that went to far. But by what measure? Even if he (Kelly Powers) argues that he finds it an objection in his conscience. So what about 1 day shy of 13?
See how arbitrary this is.
In fact, one Christian who had a melt down had to do a three hour video in response to it! Clean up on Aisle 9.
For those interested you may wish to see our other articles here:
“You are the best nation that ever existed among humanity. You command people to good and prohibit them from evil, and you believe in Allah. Had the People of the Book accepted the faith (Islam), it would certainly have been better for them. Some of them have faith, but most of them are evil doers.” (Qur’an 3:110)
﷽
Christians are in full on metldown over Islam.
On the one hand we keep hearing about this mass apostasy from Islam. They feel if they keep telling themselves that or keep saying it that it somehow becomes a reality.
These are the same Christians that tell your average every day American and Englishman that those 2% of Muslims in the U.S are somehow going to force Shariah law upon the 98% of the U.S.
Mind you that 23% of the United States 330 million population are evangelical Christians and they have yet to implement theonomy. Yet, somehow those 2% of Muslims are going to force shariah law upon the American population.
Even though the Christianity Today article mentions that Burkina Faso, a population with 65% of Muslims is not going to be implementing Shariah law.
Here is a map of Burkina Faso. (Highlighted in Red).
So which is it honey child? Are Muslims all over the world leaving Islam in mass or are the 2% of Muslims in the United States and the 6% in the United Kingdom going to enforce Shariah law upon everyone?
Every small town in the United States has no less than 50 different Christian denominations all arguing over thier particular flavour of Christianity. Yet, somehow they (these Christians) think that Muslims are all united, on the same page, have the same goals and idealogical bent?
Just look at the Islamic Republican of Iran. Where they have totally crushed their entire Christian population!!
Or have they?
Below is the Saint Sarkis Cathedral of the Armenian Orthodox Church. Pictured below is a recent mass.
That is unless Trump and the U.S intelligence and Elon Musk are all lying to us about the status of these churches.
Here is the problem. While on the one hand the United States has Princeton, MIT, Harvard, Stanford and Yale. All of which have produced some brilliant ideas and brilliant minds it also has a population that believes NASA never went to the moon. A huge segment of the population really does believe that the Earth is flat. That there is an ice wall that prevents anyone from traveling beyond. That you can reach Africa from the Grand Canyon in Arizona. That the moon is hollow, or even possibly a sattelite ‘spying’ on us.
You would think that such views are held among the poorly educated. However, you may be quite suprised to find well educated and articulate U.S Americans holdings such views and things even more extreme.
This is what the Muslim is dealing with.
Muslims are just not assimiliating!
Caucasians of European descent can celebrate their heritage days. However, when Shi’i Muslims remember Karbala or African Americans want to celebrate Kwanza we start talking about assimilation.
So we can have St. Patrick’s Day (March 17th) and have massive parades in cities like New York and Boston. The Midwest can have their Octoberfest (September-October) which is rooted in Bavarian tradition. We can have Mardis Gras (Shrove Tuesday/Feb-Mar) which was brought by French settlers and celebrated in New Orleans, Louisiana and Mobile Alabama. We can have Colombus Day/Italian Heritage Day (October) which marks Italian-American culture and has parades in New York. We can have Lief Erikson Day (Ocotber 9th) which celebrates Noridic American heritage and European exploration of North America. You can attend the Polish Fest in Milwaukee) Wisconsin which is held annually in June at Henry Maier Festival Park and all of that is fine.
The people who talk about assimilation wear T-shirts of the American flag complete with hot dog juice and mustard stains and wear the American flag like a cape.
Imagine the cognitive dissonance of a Christian who post a picture of a woman in a bikini eating a hot dog (presumably pork) with the caption. “Islam hates this.”
Did Jesus love pork?
Did Jesus love scantly clad women?
Christian apologetic/polemic scene.
The Christian apolgetic/polemic scene is in absolute disarray. They have thrown everything they have had Islam and Muslims and nothing seems to stick.
Trying to prove that Christianity which came 700 years before Islam is historically more verifable then a religion (Islam) that came 700 years after it.
This type of attack usually focuses on trying to show the disconnect between the Hebrew Scriptures, what Christians call the Old Testament and the narratives found in the Qur’an.
The Assumption is that the Old Testament which was compiled and edited and redacted during the The Babylonian Exile (6th Century BCE) -600 years before the advent of Jesus, and gives us information about Moses who came approximately 1,300 years before Jesus is an accurate recollection and account of the past events.
The Old Testament also frequently gives information about events which it could not have been witness to, or in which there were no eye witnesses. Examples being the narrative about the garden of Eden. Hence, the information has to come from what is claimed to be revelation.
In fact, reflect on the following information:
The history of the Old Testament
“The first five books of the Old Testament are the foundations of the Jewish faith and central to Christianity. It’s thought that the main author was Moses, a significant leader of the Jewish people who brought them out of slavery in Egypt. He wrote down the laws given to the Jewish people by God – including the Ten Commandments. A later book of the Old Testament, Joshua, refers to ‘the Book of the Law of Moses’. Other writings gathered together the oral stories passed down for centuries, which make up the first few chapters of the Bible.”
“Some of the books of the Old Testament took many years to come together because they documented events over centuries.”
This approach is most likely the brain child of Christian missionary Jay Smith.
Jay Smith after getting routinely destroyed in his debates with Shabir Ally; where Christianity and Islam were compared/contrasted, Smith decided the best thing to do was to not bring Christianity up at all!
Btw Jay Smith’s colleague is a guy named ‘Al Fadi’ who claimed he went to an Islamic University and he memorized “half the Qur’an” by age 12. The man is a total fraud. Just like Ergun Caner. A Christian apologist who was removed from Liberty University after the lies caught up to him. That man Ergun Caner unfortunately his own son committed suicide!
Christian mission tactics are extremely deceptive.
“What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in that I rejoice.” (Philippians 1:18)
Paul rejoices that Christ is proclaimed, regardless of the method or motive. Paul gives no moral qualification. He does not condemn the bad motives. He simply rejoices in the outcome.
In Somalia they were caught distributing books with the title ‘Al Kitab’ in Arabic and you opened it and it Al Fatiha in the first chapter followed by the rest as the Bible in Arabic!
In West Africa Masjids there were missionaries who attended Masjids with the Muslims and prayed with them! When they would get people alone and isolate them and press them on certain text of the Qur’an. Examples: Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary, or Jesus making the birds out of clay. These are called ‘insider movements’.
“Secret Christians“
“C6 is the ‘secret’ or ‘underground’ group who still remain active in the life of the Muslim community. These people see themselves as Muslim followers of Isa; the local community sees them only as Muslim. It is in connection with the missiological/indigenous church practices derived from the C5/C6 end of the spectrum that the controversy gets heated! Are those individuals who make up such congregations truly converted, or are they in reality still Muslim? Now, we must be careful how from a safe, comfortable Western perspective we critique C5/C6 followers of Jesus. In many Islamic countries and communities, confessing faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, God, and Saviour can result in severe persecution — the loss of educational privileges, occupation, family and even life. We perhaps need also to keep in mind Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea! An even more extreme application of the C6 principle is known as the ‘Insider Movement’. The Insider Movement encourages Muslims who have ‘accepted’ Jesus to stay within their Muslim family and communities.”
You even have the ‘honey trap’ Christians active in Indonesia where they talk to women online and try to get compromosing photos of said individuals and then use manipulative tactics to get these women to convert to Christianity! Truly disgusting.
Even you can frequently see Christian missionaries and apologist say ‘Praise Allah’ or ‘Al hamdulillah’ now of course they say such things sarcastically. However, the discerning Christian should ask themselves if Allah (swt) is really a demon as they claim why given praise to Allah sarcastically?
No Muslim is going to say All praise be to Shiva or all praise be to Baal. Even sarcastically. These are serious matters that Christians take in jest.
A famous Roman Catholic channel dropped a bombshell on his timeline. The greatest miracle of the Eastern Orthodox Church is a lie! Want to know what is exceedingly interesting about this? These same Eastern Orthodox Christians who usually come in packs anytime Eastern Othodox Christianity is challenged were quite as church mice on this particular post. The best any of them had to bring was ‘whatabouism’. But your Church (The Catholic Church) has this and this.
After the clash of historical narratives arguments the second biggest canon the Christian missionaries feel they have in their arsenal is the so called, ‘Islamic Dilemma’.
Even Christian missionary David Wood called it ‘the biggest apostasy maker‘. Now what is intersting by this statement is that David Wood did not call the so called, ‘Islamic Dilemma’ the biggest maker of Christians.
This argument was designed by Christians to take the heat of the Bible and take the conversation away from the Bible.
What is likely in this scenario is that you create an agnostic who has gone from a conservative world view to one that is very open to a very liberal world view.
As regard, the David Wood apologist a Christian magazine had the following to report about him.
The reason this information came out was not as David Wood claimed to ‘clear the air’ David Wood acted premeptively against another Christian Apologist, Hassamo ‘Sam Shamoun’ to prevent Sam from using the above information against him (David Wood).
David Wood then release a photo of Hassamo ‘Sam Shamoun’s ex-wife with a black eye. Yet, another Christian apologist website called ‘Reasoned Answers’ released the following video:
This video absolutely destroyed Shamoun’s credibility as he is caught in several contradictions.
By the way, Sam Shamoun was (not sure if he still is) one of the premier writers for answeringislam.org < the website Christians use to debunk Islam.
You have to wonder if Sam Shamoun’s ex-wife thought it was an ‘accident’ what motivated her to share a picture of herself with a black eye to David Wood?
This prompted Sam Shamoun to retaliate against ‘Reasoned Answers’ -another Christian apologist website that focuses on attacking Islam. Sam Shamoun had discovered that ‘Reasoned Answers’ has a son who identifies as a transgender. A member of the LGBTQ community.
He (Sam) also pointed out that the man behind ‘Reasoned Answers’ his own wife was involved in LGBTQ activity.
Sam who goes by the moniker ‘Bruce Lee’ @BruceSaiFun posted the following. He posted pictures of ‘Reasoned Answers’ wife -where she posted a pic of herself with breast (covered by her hair). Why anyone would post such pictures on Facebook is anyone’s guess.
Imagine! This ‘Reasoned Answers’ individual has a wife doing all this and he is calling Muslims to become Christians? No thank you.
However, look at Sam’s language. This is what Christians are calling us to.
This of course prompted ‘Reasoned Answers’ to release the following video:
In the above video ‘Reasoned Answers’ explains he is not happy with his son’s choice to be a transexual.
If you hear his explanation this is enough evidence for anyone in Muslim majority countries to NOT want their socities moddled after the the degenerate Christiain culture of the 21st century.
The one verse in the New Testament that Christians hate more than Islam.
“No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.” (1 John 3:9)
If you saw the way that Christians (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestants) try and run from this verse it would leave you shocked. The point of the verse is that man is in sin and is sinful. However, once you are born of God this means you are born of the Holy Spirit.
This means that real true Christians cannot sin, not even once! But we all know how this ends up don’t we?
Atheist should become Christians to stop the tide of Islam?!
If you want anymore proof that Christianity is in full on meltdown mode watch this video insh’Allah.
Ayaan Hirsi is basically pleading to Richard Dawkins (and all Atheist and Freethinkers) basically to become ‘cultural Christians’. This may mean to do a public announcement or baptism to outwardly appease Christians. The argument that Ayaan basically gives is that there is a spiritual vaccum in Western Nations. That Islam will fill that gap. So she is making her case to Dawkins for Christianity.
What is interesting is why Ayaan thinks that Islam in particular will fill this vacuum. Not Buddhism, not New Age Spirituality, not Wicca, not Hinduism or anything else but Islam!
Ayaan is actually not trying to persuade Atheist on rather or not Islam is true but rather or not Christianity is a political necessity as a ‘bulwark’ against Islam.
That is exactly where we are. From Mark Zuckerbergs Facebook where one is hard pressed to log on and not get their timeline flooded with Anti-Islamic post; to Elon Musk, changing the algorithm on X to prevent engagement from Pro Palestine and Pro Islam post. Yet changing the algortihm to ramping up engagement on Anti-Islam post.
Christians are in full on meltdown over Islam.
They need not be. We the Muslims welcome them home. To their true home with us.
May Allah guide the Christians out of the darkness that they are in into the light of Islam.
“But My mercy encompasses everything. I will ordain mercy for those who shun evil, pay alms-tax, and believe in Our revelations.” (Qur’an 7:156)
“And He is the All-Forgiving, All-Loving.” (Qur’an 85:14)
“Do you not love to be forgiven by Allah? And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 24:22)
﷽
I will begin this article by sharing a perspective that may seem counter intuitive to the very article that I am writing.
For me one of the biggest signs of Allah’s Love and Mercy is the Creation of Hellfire and the Creation of the Worst Possible Planets for any life to exist.
I was reading this article on the worst possible planet and it certainly made me very thankful to be on Earth!
“Leah Crane: The planet I think is the worst also happens to be my least favourite planet, which is Mercury. It’s really close to the sun, and when we think about a planet being bad for life, a lot of the time we think about it either being very hot or very cold. Mercury is both. It is tidally locked, so one side always faces the sun, and that side, which we call the day side, is about 800° Fahrenheit, which is 430° Celsius, all the time – absolutely awful.”
Leah Crane: A little too hot. Also, you’d get a lot of cancers from all of the radiation. And then there’s the other side which always faces away from the sun, which is -290° Fahrenheit or -180° Celsius, equally unpleasant.
From the diversity and beauty of the animal kingdom to the various landscapes on Earth the first thought that certainly does not come to my mind is: “This Creator wants the absolute worst for us.”
From left to right: Kirkjufell Mountain located in Iceland. Credit to David Stanfield. Moraine Lake Banff National Park Canada. Credit to Nicole Seidl. Maya Bay Phi Phi Leh Thailand. Credit to Silent Sightseer. All photos taken from pexels.com
One of the means of knowing something is through contrast.
We know when something is unpleasant and thus we know what is pleasant. We know what it is to not to love and not to receive love. We know what it is not to be merciful or to receive mercy. We know what it is not to forgive or to be forgiven.
So in order to truly know Allah’s love, mercy and forgiveness we are shown its opposite.
“If Allah should take men to task for their injustice, He would not leave on the earth one single living creature; but He is deferring them to a term stated; and when their term is come they shall not put it back by a single hour nor put it forward.” (Qur’an 16:61)
This is to be contrasted with the Biblical characterization of the Creator.
“And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.” (Exodus 32:14)
“The Lord regretted making human beings on the earth, and his heart was grieved. So the Lord said: I will wipe out from the earth the human beings I have created, and not only the human beings, but also the animals and the crawling things and the birds of the air, for I regret that I made them.” (Genesis 6:6-7)
The clear distinction here is that in the Qur’an where Allah (swt) is simply telling us that if he were to give us our just desserts (what we really deserve) the extent of his wrath would essentially be scorched earth.
Where as in the Bible we are presented with a being who thinks to do evil to his creation, and even regrets making them.
Another huge difference between the portrayal of the divine in the two faiths is that in Christianity God is never sated or satiated unless there is pain or suffering. The running of a blade across the throat of an animal satiates God’s wrath.
“And without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” (Hebrews 9:22)
Where as in Islam a contrite human heart is what is needed before a Loving and Merciful Creator.
“The Day when neither wealth will be of any use nor sons, except to one who will come to Allah with a sound heart.” (Qur’an 26:88-89)
The blueprint for forgiveness was initiated by our Creator let us not forget this!
In Islam Allah forgives the first human being who erred and it was Allah who initiated the reproach between Creator and created!
Allah did not wait for Adam to approach him, in fact Allah inspired and taught him the words to seek forgiveness.
“Then Adam received from his Lord [some] words, and He accepted his repentance. Indeed, it is He who is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.” (Qur’an 2: 37)
a) Allah taught Adam the very words to seek reconciliation with him.
b) He accepted those words; because they are from him to begin with.
c) Allah accepts repentance.
Allah loves those who repent and purify themselves.
“Surely Allah loves those who always turn to Him in repentance and those who purify themselves.” (Qur’an 2:222)
Seeking forgiveness for our sins is an act of obedience and worship itself!
“Turn to Allah in repentance all together, O believers, so that you may be successful.” (Qur’an 24:31)
“O you who believe! Turn unto Allah in sincere repentance! It may be that your Lord will remit from you your evil deeds and bring you into Gardens underneath which rivers flow, on the day when Allah will not abase the Prophet and those who believe with him. Their light will run before them and on their right hands; they will say: Our Lord! Perfect our light for us, and forgive us! Lo! You have power over all things.” (Qur’an 66:8)
Allah (swt) has promised that he will forgive your sins.
“And whoever does evil or acts unjustly to his soul, then asks forgiveness of Allah, will find Allah Forgiving, Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:110)
“The Forgiver of sin and Accepter of repentance, the Severe in punishment, and Infinite in bounty. There is no god except Him. To Him is the final return.” (Qur’an 40:3)
Your sins are not greater than Allah’s mercy.
Disbelieving in Allah’s mercy and/or willingness to forgive sins is a major sin. A trap of Shaitan.
“He said, “And who despairs of the mercy of his Lord except for those astray?” (Qur’an 15:56)
“”O my sons! go and enquire about Joseph and his brother, and never give up hope of Allah’s Soothing Mercy: truly no one despairs of Allah’s Soothing Mercy, except those who ungrateful disbelievers.” (Qur’an 12:87)
“Say, ˹O Prophet, that Allah says,˺ “O My servants who have exceeded the limits against their souls! Do not lose hope in Allah’s mercy, for Allah certainly forgives all sins. He is indeed the All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 39:53)
“O believers! Do not follow the footsteps of Satan. Whoever follows Satan’s footsteps, then he surely bids immorality and wickedness. Had it not been for Allah’s grace and mercy upon you, none of you would have ever been purified. But Allah purifies whoever He wills. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.” (Qur’an 24:21)
Allah (swt) forgives all sins via repentance. This includes shirk as shirk is a sin.
Please see our article here that explains this. Al hamduillah our school is upon the haqq concerning this matter. May Allah (swt) guide the ummah to the truth.
We have no one else to turn to or efface our sins except Allah. Only Allah forgives Sins.
“Those who, upon committing an evil deed or wronging themselves, remember Allah and seek forgiveness for their sins—and who forgives sins except Allah?—and they do not knowingly persist in wrongdoing?” (Qur’an 3:135)
“Once you make a decision, put your trust in Allah. Surely Allah loves those who trust in Him.” (Qur’an 3:159)
Allah (swt) loves those who trust and rely upon him. Are we not trusting and relying upon Allah -alone when we ask him and him alone to forgive us? The answer is yes. Therefore in that condition we are among those who Allah (swt) loves!
How do I know that my repentance is sincere?
“O you who have believed, repent to Allah with sincere repentance.” (Qur’an 66:8)
“And whoever repents and does good has truly turned to Allah properly.” (Qur’an 25:71)
The fact that you desired to repent in and of itself is an act of sincerity. Second that you follow up your incorrect conduct with correct conduct.
Remorse is repentance.
Leaving the sin
Having remorse after committing the sin, which can only happen if our nature is not sinful to begin with.
Resolve to not return to the sin
If you sinned against Allah ask Allah to forgive you.
If you sinned against another person return their rights or seek reconciliation.
If you sinned against yourself, forgive yourself.
How do we know that our repentance is accepted?
“But whoever repents after his wrongdoing and reforms, indeed, Allah will turn to him in forgiveness. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 5:39)
“As for those who repent, mend their ways, and let the truth be known, they are the ones to whom I will turn tofor I am the Accepter of Repentance, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 2:160)
“But I am truly Most Forgiving to whoever repents, believes, and does good, then persists on guidance.” (Qur’an 20:82)
“As for those who repent, believe, and do good, it is they who will be admitted into Paradise, never being denied any reward.” (Qur’an 19:60)
“Only for those who do wrong. But if they later mend evil with good, then I am certainly All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 27:11)
The act of repentance in and of itself is a good. Than you follow up your repentance by continuing to do good deeds and trusting in Allah (Qur’an 3:159) by doing such is a sign that you have truly repented. It is also a sign that Allah has forgiven you.
Allah actually wants to accept our repentance!
“Allah wants to make clear to you [the lawful from the unlawful] and guide you to the [good] practices of those before you and to accept your repentance. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.” (Qur’an 4:26)
“Allah wants to accept your repentance, but those who follow their passions want you to digress into a great deviation.” (Qur’an 4:27)
“And it is He who accepts repentance from his servants and pardons misdeeds, and He knows what you do.” (Qur’an 42:25)
When we do a sin repent and start on the course of good we can know that Allah (swt) loves us.
“And do good, for Allah certainly loves the good-doers.” (Qur’an 2:195)
“And Allah loves the good-doers.” (Qur’an 3:134)
Allah loves those who are a doers of good.
Repentance is an act of worship and obedience.
Repentance is an act of good.
Therefore Allah loves us.
The angels keep a record of all our actions. For those who die upon faith and die upon Islam all the good is kept. The minor sins they are turned into good.
“This, Our record, speaks about you in truth. Indeed, We were having transcribed whatever you used to do.” (Qur’an 45:29)
A HUGE MISUNDERSTANDING. ALLAH’S FORGIVENESS IS NOT ARBITRARY.
To Allah belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. He forgives whoever (liman) He wills, and punishes whoever He wills. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Qur’an 3:129)
First of all. If you take this verse in isolation of other verses it means that those people who sincerely repent Allah (swt) may not forgive them. Then those people whom Allah (swt) says he would not forgive it means Allah (swt) would might them. Far above Allah (swt) to ascribe to him a capricious nature.
Second of all. There is no such thing as Allah can forgive your sins but not 100% otherwise it would be vain. Allah is far above this!
What is the benefit of Allah forgiving a servant of some of his sins and then leaving them alone? We accuse Allah (swt) of fooling around, while Allah Almighty is far above this.
You will often note that those verses that have the phrase: “He forgives whoever (liman) He wills, and punishes whoever He wills.” are in connection to asserting Allah’s authority over the claim of Jews or Christians who claim salvation is solely for them. Or, even in the context of Allah (swt) asserting authority over that of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Some examples:
“The Jews and the Christians each say, “We are the children of Allah and His most beloved!” Say, “Why then does He punish you for your sins? No! You are only humans like others of His Own making. He forgives whoever He wills and punishes whoever He wills. To Allah belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and everything in between. And to Him is the final return.” (Qur’an 5:18)
“You ˹O Prophet˺ have no say in the matter. It is up to Allah to turn to them in mercy or punish them, for indeed they are wrongdoers. To Allah belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. He forgives whoever He wills, and punishes whoever He wills. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 3:128-129)
Allah (swt) put conditions on receiving forgiveness.
“But indeed, I am the Perpetual Forgiver of whoever (liman) repents and believes and does righteousness and then continues in guidance.” (Qur’an 20:82)
Whoever dies without repenting from shirk, unlawful sexual intercourse, killing a soul without right. Allah will not forgive them.
“And those who do not invoke with Allah another deity or kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed], except by right, and do not commit unlawful sexual intercourse. And whoever should do that will meet a penalty. Multiplied for him is the punishment on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein humiliated -Except for those who repent, believe and do righteous work. For them Allah will replace their evil deeds with good. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 25:68-70)
Anyone who sincerely repents will be like one who did not do any sins. This is correct. However, will that person recover and repent before the Angel of Death surprises him? This is a huge risk!
“Say, “What would my Lord care for you if not for your supplication?” For you have denied, so your denial is going to be adherent.” (Qur’an 25:77)
SINS CAN BE FORGIVEN FOR YOUR AFTERLIFE YET HAVE EFFECTS FELT IN THIS LIFE.
Another point is that there are effects of the sins and transgressions that we have done. For example if we sincerely repent this means that Allah (swt) has forgiven us in the afterlife. However, you will suffer from the effects of your sins in this world. May Allah (swt) forgive us in this life and the afterlife. So let us not take risk!
In other words Allah (swt) may hasten your punishment in this life and forgive you in the afterlife if you are sincere in your repentance.
This does not necessarily apply to every time you sin or every type of sin and Allah knows best. Some of the scholars mention that Allah (swt) says he is Forgiving and Forgiving. Why did he simply not say Forgiving? They say that forgiveness means pardoning you for the effects of this sin in this world and forgiveness means erasing the sin itself!
This is seen in Allah’s name: Al-Afuww -The one who not only forgives sins but also eliminates their negative impact, as if they never occurred.
Two examples:
Example A: Person is forgiven but the effects of sin are felt.
A person commits illicit sexual intercourse. This person is very remorseful and turns in sincere repentance to Allah. Allah (swt) forgives them. No punishment awaits them in the next life. However, the person finds out they have contracted HIV. This will impact the person for the rest of his/her life. Even knowingly being intimate with a person whom is unaware of your HIV status can lead to criminal charges, such as attempted murder.
Example B: Person is forgiven but the effects of sin are not felt.
A person was in a rush and was negligent in their wudhu. Not having a proper wudhu nullifies and invalidates the prayer. The person then realizes this. They do their wudhu with care and consideration and pray with devotion and sincerity. They ask Allah (swt) to forgive them. They are forgiven. No punishment awaits them in the next life nor are there any negative effects felt from the sin.
“As for those who repent, believe, and do good deeds, they are the ones whose evil deeds Allah will change into good deeds. For Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 25:70)
“Surely good deeds wipe out evil deeds. That is a reminder for the mindful.” (Qur’an 11:114) -how you know your sins are forgiven.
“IF (but) eschew the evilest of the things which you are forbidden to do, We shall expel out of (Saiyiatikum) YOU ALL THE EVIL IN YOU, and admit you to a gate of great honor.” (Qur’an 4:31)
Allah loves those who purify themselves.
“Surely Allah loves those who always turn to Him in repentance and those who purify themselves.” (Qur’an 2:222)
Repentance itself is an act of purification. It is the initial process to cleanse the heart and soul of the sin committed and therefore Allah loves those who initiate this process.
Allah loves those who are just.
“And whoever does evil or acts unjustly to his soul, then asks forgiveness of Allah, will find Allah Forgiving, Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:110)
“Surely Allah loves those who uphold justice.” (Qur’an 49:9)
When you sin you act unjustly to your soul -you are condemning yourself to possible damnation. Therefore when you seek forgiveness to Allah (swt) you are doing justice to yourself, to your own soul and as you are upholding justice via your repentance your among those beloved to Allah (swt).
The Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) is to seek forgiveness as instructed by Allah (swt).
“And seek Allah’s forgiveness. Surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 73:20)
“So be patient ˹O Prophet˺, ˹for˺ Allah’s promise is certainly true. Seek forgiveness for your sin. And glorify the praises of your Lord morning and evening.” (Qur’an 40:55)
“We sent no messenger save that he should be obeyed by Allah’s leave. And if, when they had wronged themselves, they had but come to you and asked forgiveness of Allah, and asked forgiveness of the messenger, they would find Allah Forgiving, Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:64)
“If you should love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 3:31)
The Blessed Messenger (saw) used to ask Allah (swt) to forgive him. That is part of his Sunnah. It is a major part of his Sunnah to ask Allah (swt) to forgive him, have mercy and compassion upon him.
By doing this we to follow and emulate the Blessed Messenger (saw) thus becoming the people mentioned in (Qur’an 3:31). Allah will love us and forgive us -1) for following the sunnah in general. 2) especially for following the sunnah of asking for forgiveness.
Allah responds to our prayers!
This simple fact is above all else. It in and of itself is the cause for the elation of the soul and the hope for the penitent.
When My servants ask you ˹O Prophet˺ about Me: I am truly near. I respond to one’s prayer when they call upon Me. So let them respond ˹with obedience˺ to Me and believe in Me, perhaps they will be guided ˹to the Right Way˺ (Qur’an 2:186)
“Your Lord has proclaimed, “Call upon Me, I will respond to you. Surely those who are too proud to worship Me will enter Hell, fully humbled.” (Qur’an 40:60)
“To the tribe of Thamud We sent their brother Salih. He said, “My people, worship God. You have no God other than Him. He created you out of the earth and made you inhabit it. Ask Him to forgive your sins, and turn towards Him in repentance. My Lord is near, and ready to answer.” (Qur’an 11:61)
Holy Angels That Are Beings of Pure Light Pray Constantly and Continuously for your Forgiveness and Guidance!
“Those (angels) who carry the Throne and those around it glorify the praises of their Lord, have faith in Him, and seek forgiveness for the believers, (praying) “Our Lord! You encompass everything in (your) mercy and knowledge. So forgive those who repent and follow Your Way, and protect them from the torment of Hellfire. Our Lord! Admit them into the Gardens of Eternity which You have promised them, along with the righteous among their parents, spouses, and descendants. You (alone) are truly the Almighty, All-Wise. And protect them from (the consequences of their) evil deeds. For whoever You protect from the evil of their deeds on that Day will have been shown Your mercy. That is the ultimate triumph.” (Qur’an 40:7-9)
Prima Qur’an comments:
Imagine that Allah (swt) created a group of angels that specifically are tasked with praying for the forgiveness and protection of the believers. Those who follow the way of Allah. Not only are they praying for you specifically, they are praying for your parents , and the wife or husband that you have not even met or married yet! The one who is currently your parent and for the children you have not even had born yet! As well as those who currently are your children!
There is tremendous amount of love and mercy that is directed towards the believers! That is why those who reject all this love and mercy are kafir (ingrates) -(ungrateful) such a people are without question and without doubt deserving of the hellfire because it is the path they pro actively choose.
NOT TO MENTION THE MONTH OF RAMADAN.
This can be a whole entry in and of itself. However, in particular this is to the Muslim reader. You know the amount of mercy and forgiveness and spiritual upliftment that is contained with in the month of Ramadan! It is an entire month that comes every year that is a means of spiritual training and gaining proximity and closeness to Allah (swt).
Imagine if in Ramadan you were to continuously pray to Allah (swt) for forgiveness and protection from the hellfire. Imagine even if you prayed that du’a with sincerity even once and it was granted!
A WARNING TO THE BELIEVERS.
Dear brothers and sisters, respected ummah of Muhammed (saw). All that has gone before is to show you that the deck has not been stacked against us. Quite the opposite. The fact that we are have been commanded to pray five times a day. That those five daily prayers are a continuous means for us to draw night and ask forgiveness from the Supreme Sovereign of this Universe. The gift of the month of Ramadan. Angelic beings of light praying for us and our spouses and children that we ourselves potentially haven’t even met! This is supreme love, supreme grace, supreme care and supreme mercy.
That being said we have to want this mercy and this love and this grace. In light of all that has been said those who end up going to hellfire are those among us who are actively participating in our own self destruction. You actually have to want to go to hellfire. How does one want this? By disobeying Allah (swt), by avoiding the commands of a Sovereign Creator and indulging in that which The Creator has prohibited. Most of all by shunning repentance
Ask Allah to forgive you quickly.
“Allah only accepts the repentance of those who commit evil ignorantly ˹or recklessly˺ then repent soon after Allah will pardon them. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 4:17)
“And hasten towards forgiveness from your Lord and a Paradise as vast as the heavens and the earth, prepared for those mindful ˹of Allah˺” (Qur’an 3:133)
Delaying repentance is a sign of arrogance and ingratitude. Here you have a Lord that wants to forgive you and you shun this forgiveness. It is an act of disobedience. It is a sign that you are not recalcitrant and that you deem your action or style of living as something of light consequence.
Very sobering verse from the Qur’an.
Why should we not delay repentance?
“However, repentance is not accepted from those who knowingly persist in sin until they start dying, and then cry, “Now I repent!” nor those who die as disbelievers. For them We have prepared a painful punishment.” (Qur’an 4:18)
Are you guaranteed to live after reading this very sentence? Are you guaranteed to live the next few minutes or even the next hour? So considering that repentance is not accepted by the one who waits to be besieged by the angel of death when is the best time to repent?
Now!
“Indeed, whoever commits misdeeds, and becomes besieged by his iniquities—these are the inmates of the Fire, wherein they will dwell forever.” (Qur’an 2:81)
Any Muslim who sins it is the duty of the believing Muslim to admonish his brother/sister in a good way. Help them to save face. Do not humiliate them. Advise them in a good manner.
However, if a Muslim continues to persist in sin that person is to be shunned. To continue to walk in fellowship with them is walking in fellowship to the one who insults Allah (swt) , shuns his mercy and forgiveness and guidance.
“Cooperate with one another in goodness and righteousness, and do not cooperate in sin and transgression. And be mindful of Allah. Surely Allah is severe in punishment.” (Qur’an 5:2)
Remember that Allah (swt) only accepts from those of us who do our level best to live a righteous a life.
“Indeed, Allah only accepts from the righteous [who fear Him]” (Qur’an 5:27)
If any person Muslim or not dies as a fasiq (a person committing major sins), does not repent, is unjust Allah will refuse his/her all his deeds and that one will be in hell.
“That is because they followed what angered Allah and disliked [what earns] His pleasure, so He rendered worthless their deeds.” (Qur’an 47:28)
“Those who disbelieved, and prevented (others) from Allah’s way, He (Allah) has rendered their deeds vain.” (Qur’an 47:1)
“And those who do not invoke with Allah another deity or kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed], except by right, and do not commit unlawful sexual intercourse. And whoever should do that will meet a penalty. Multiplied for him is the punishment on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein humiliated –Except for those who repent, believe and do righteous work. For them Allah will replace their evil deeds with good. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 25:70)
The question has been put forward to you dear brothers and sisters and sincere truth seekers.
“Will, they not turn with repentance to Allah and ask His forgiveness? For Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful” (Qur’an 5:74)
“And He is the All-Forgiving, All-Loving (Qur’an 85:14)
“(We take our) colour from Allah, and who is better than Allah at colouring. We are His worshippers.” (Qur’an 2:138) -Pickthall
“(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah: And who can baptize better than Allah? And it is He Whom we worship.” (Qur’an 2:138)-Yusuf Ali.
﷽
(Pictured above is Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h) in a light moment.)
The following is a transcript of the respected Shaykh, Ahmed Al Khalili (h).
“The baptism of Allah” and who is better than Allah in baptism? And we are His worshippers. There is much disagreement concerning the meaning of “ṣibghah ” here; however, we find this disagreement expressed in two main views.
The first view is held by those who say that what is meant by “ṣibghah ” here is whatAllah may He be exalted and glorified has instilled in the hearts of His believing servants of loyalty to Him, obedience to Him, faith in Him and in the prophets, faith in what was revealed to them, and action in accordance with that faith. This view indicates that Allah may He be exalted has planted the meanings of faith in the believers, and its effects have appeared in their conduct. These effects are like an outward, visible dye, by which they are distinguished from all other people.
The terms ṣibghah and ṣibgh are also used to refer to character, dispositions, and the upbringing that a father gives his children. An example is the poet’s saying: “Every people have their own dye/character, and the dye/character of Hamdan is the best of dyes; we raise our children upon that, so how excellent is our dye among dyers!” For what is meant by ṣibghah here is the psychological upbringing whose psychological effects manifest in behavior.
To this view reverts the interpretation of those who explain ṣibghah as religion, those who explain it as innate nature (fiṭrah), those who explain it as sacred law (sharī’ah), and those who explain it as the seal/stamp for those who interpret ṣibghah as the seal have understood the concept of ṣibghah in this sense.
The second view is that ṣibghah is mentioned by way of literary parallelism (mushākalah) specifically, confirmatory parallelism because some of the Jews, in ages past, used to perform a bath of repentance. This practice continued until it resulted in what came to be called baptism (ta’mīd) and the sacrament of baptism (ma’mūdiyyah) among some of the Christians. The origin of this was that when one of their priests offered a sacrifice of repentance for a sin he had committed, or for a sin committed by his household, as well as during festivals the festivals of repentance for the general sins of the Children of Israel they would bathe. They continued this practice.
It was said that when John son of Zechariah (peace be upon him) would call people to repentance and remorse, just as they used to repent, and he would command them to bathe in the Jordan River. This was called in Aramaic ma’mūdhā or ma’mūthā, meaning purification. When Jesus (peace be upon him) received the revelation, he had first bathed and washed. The Arabs rendered the word ma’mūdh as ma’mūl and derived from it the terms al-ta’mīd and al-ta’mud (baptism). Thus, one who converted to Christianity was said to have been “baptized” (ta’mada) if he performed that washing which is followed by entering Christianity. And they said of those priests of the Christians who administer this rite in bringing someone into Christianity that he “baptizes” (‘ammada) or is “a baptizer” (mu’ammid).
It was said that when severe disagreement arose between John son of Zechariah and Jesus (peace be upon them both) on one side, and the Jews on the other, the Jews abandoned this washing, so it remained among the Christians and they continued it. Some of them began baptizing their children on the seventh day, saying to the one they baptized on that day: “Today you have truly become an Israelite” that is, on the seventh day after his birth, they wash him in water. This water is kept in basins in the churches, and they claim that in this water there are remnants of the water with which Jesus (peace be upon him) bathed and which dripped from his body. Whenever the water is about to run out, they add new water to it, so that those drops which they claim remain would continue to exist in that water. This water is what is called “the water of baptism” (mā’ al-ma’mūliyyah).
Based on this based on this view the noble verse contains a parallelism, meaning: If you are immersing yourselves in this water by which you enter into your religion, or by which you bring people into your religion, or by which you bring your children into your religion, then we have been dyed with Allah’s baptism.
It is also said that this water the Jews used to call ghimās in the bath from ṣaba’a yaṣba’u meaning “to immerse” in the Hebrew language. When the Arabs Arabized that, they disliked using the root ṣ-b-‘_ because it does not convey this meaning in Arabic. So they rendered this word using the root ṣ-b-gh instead. That is why it was called ṣibgh, ṣibghah, and ṣibghah.
As for ṣibghah it is either a verbal noun indicating a state or manner, like jilsah (a sitting posture), or it is a passive participle, because the passive participle can come on the pattern fi’l and fi’lah as in ṭiḥn meaning “ground flour,” wid meaning “found,” ḥib meaning “beloved” and likewise it comes on the pattern fi’lah when one intends femininity, like ṣibghah and wishqah for something split/cracked.
There is much disagreement regarding the grammatical declension of ṣibghah here. Some say that ṣibghah is a substitute (badal) for “the religion of Abraham” (millat Ibrāhīm) so whoever reads millata Ibrāhīma in the accusative, reads ṣibghata in the accusative; and whoever reads it in the nominative, reads ṣibghatu in the nominative. Others say it is an emphatic verbal noun (maṣdar mu’akkid) that emphasizes the meaning in Allah’s saying: “Say: We believe in Allah and what was revealed to us…” i.e., faith as Allah’s baptism; this faith is the baptism. Some say it is an emphasis for the entire preceding sentence, as in Allah’s saying may He be exalted “And on that day the believers will rejoice in Allah’s help; He helps whom He wills, and He is the Mighty, the Merciful. [This is] Allah’s promise” so the verbal noun “Allah’s promise” emphasizes the entire preceding sentence, not a previously implied verbal noun. Similarly, “The baptism of Allah” “And who is better than Allah in baptism?” i.e., we are baptized/immersed in Allah’s baptism, or the religion of Abraham is Allah’s baptism, or faith is Allah’s baptism, or adherence to Allah’s baptism. “And who is better than Allah in baptism?” — i.e., who is there whose baptism is better than Allah’s baptism? The interrogative here is rhetorical, meaning negation, indicating denial.
“And we are His worshippers” i.e., we are submissive to Him, or we are obedient to Him, or we are humbly devoted to Him, or we are submissive to Him. All of this has been mentioned in the interpretation of worship (‘ibādah) and servitude (u’būdah), as previously explained in Sūrat al-Fātiḥah that it is absolute humility that emanates from the soul with a consciousness inspired by correct belief in the Creator, may He be exalted and glorified. This is the correct worship required of man.
“And we are His” i.e., for Allah alone, not for any other i.e., we do not associate any partner with Him “worshippers.” Therefore, the related element (the prepositional phrase) is placed before the predicate (‘ābidūn) to indicate exclusivity. In this there is a subtle allusion to the Jews and Christians who worshipped other than Allah, may He be exalted and glorified.
We will now conclude at this point, asking Allah may He be exalted for success and right guidance. He is the One who grants success. And may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon our master Muḥammed, and upon his family and all his companions. Exalted is your Lord, the Lord of might, above what they describe. And peace be upon the messengers. And praise be to Allah, Lord of all worlds.
The following is from Dr. Ahmed bin Jabir Al Miskiri (h). May Allah (swt) reward him for this. It is a more precise and technical understanding of the above discussion.
baptism/colouring] of Allah. And who is better than Allah in baptism? And we are worshippers of Him.” There has been much disagreement regarding the sibghah, yet we restrict this disagreement to two opinions: The first is the view of those who said that what is meant by the sibghah here is what Allah, the Glorified and Exalted, has infused into the hearts of His believing servants of their loyalty and obedience to Allah, the Glorified and Exalted, their belief in Him, in the prophets, and in what was sent down to them, and their acting in accordance with this faith. For this opinion indicates that Allah, the Glorified and Exalted, implanted in the believers the matters of faith, so their effects appeared upon their conduct, making these effects akin to a clear, manifest dye, by which they were distinguished from all other people.
The Arabs apply the term sibghah to morals, natural dispositions, and the upbringing with which a father raises his sons. From that is the poet’s saying: “And every people have a sibghah, and the sibghah of Hamdan is the best of sibgh; we have dyed our sons upon that, so how noble is our sibghah in the sibgh!” Indeed, what is meant by sibghah here is the upbringing whose psychological effects appear in conduct. And to this opinion returns the view of whoever interpreted sibghah as religion, whoever interpreted sibghah as the natural disposition (fitrah), whoever interpreted sibghah as the divine law (sharia), and whoever interpreted sibghah as circumcision. By my life, indeed whoever interpreted sibghah as circumcision has certainly narrowed the concept of sibghah!
The second opinion is that sibghah was mentioned by way of estimated matching (mushākalah); becauses some of the Jews, in bygone ages, used to perform the ritual bath of repentance, and this ritual bath continued until it resulted in what came to be called baptism and baptismal practices among some of the Christians. And the origin of that: that the priests one of them, when presenting a sacrifice of repentance for a sin he committed or a sin committed by the people of his household, and likewise during the feasts of repentance for the general sins of the Children of Israel used to bathe, and they continued to do so.
It was said that when John the son of Zechariah, peace be upon him, was calling the people to repentance, and whenever they repented, he would command them to bathe from the stream of the Jordan. And this was called in the Aramaic language (ma’mūdhut or ma’mūdhutā) meaning purification. And Jesus, peace be upon him, when he received the revelation, had first taken a bath and washed. The Arabs arabized the word (ma’mūdhut) into the word (ma’mūd), and they derived from it baptism (ta’mīd) and being baptized (ta’amud). So it was said of one who Christianized: “He was baptized” when he performed that bath which is followed by his embracing of Christianity. And they said of whoever performs that from among the Christian priests in admitting someone into Christianity: “He baptizes” or “he is a baptizer.”
It was said that when the severe disagreement arose between John the son of Zechariah and Jesus, peace be upon them, on the one hand, and the Jews on the other hand, the Jews abandoned this ritual bath, so it remained among some of the Christians and they persisted in it. And some of them when they began to baptize their children on the seventh day, and they say to the one for whom they baptized: “Today you have truly become a Christian.” The child on the seventh day of his birth is washed by them in water. This water is prepared in basins in the churches, and they claim that in this water are remnants of the water with which Jesus, peace be upon him, washed and which dripped from his body.
Whenever the water was on the verge of running out, they added new water to it so that those droplets which they claim remain present in that water might persist; this water is what is called the water of baptism. Based on this opinion, there is in the noble verse a matching (mushākalah); meaning: If you dye yourselves with this water with which you enter your religion, or with which you bring people into your religion, or with which you bring your children into your religion, then we have indeed dyed ourselves with the sibghah of Allah, the Exalted.
It is said that this water the Jews used to call the act of dipping into it (al-sab’-) from (saba’a, yasba’u) meaning to plunge in the Hebrew language. When the Arabs arabized that, they found it distasteful to use the root (saba’a) because it is a root that does not indicate this meaning in the Arabic language, so they arabized this word by dotting the ghayn (changing it to sabagha). Therefore, that was called sabghan, sibghan, and sibghah.
And sibghah is either an infinitive noun indicating state/manner like al-jilsah, or it is a passive participle, because the passive participle is brought in the measure of fi’l and fi’lah, like tihlun meaning ground, jaddun meaning existing, and hibbun meaning beloved. Likewise, the measure of fi’lah is brought when feminine intent is intended, like sibghah and shiqfah for a broken piece.
There has been much disagreement regarding the parsing (i’rāb) of al-sibghah here: some of them said that al-sibghah is in apposition (badal) to millata Ibrahima. Therefore, whoever recited millata Ibrahima in the accusative in recitation recited sibghata in the accusative, and whoever raised it raised it. And it was said: It is an emphatic verbal noun (maṣdar mu’akkid); it emphasizes the meaning in His saying, the Most High: {Say, “We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us”} meaning: as faith, the sibghah of Allah. This faith is the sibghah of Allah.
Some of them said that it is an affirmation for the entire sentence, as in his saying: It is an emphatic verbal noun for the entire preceding sentence, not an emphasis for a prior estimated verbal noun. Similar to this is the saying of Allah, the Glorified and Exalted: {And that Day the believers will rejoice * in the victory of Allah. He gives victory to whom He wills, and He is the Exalted in Might, the Merciful * The promise of Allah}. The verbal noun is wa’da Allah meaning: Allah promised you that, His promise. This verbal noun emphasizes the entire preceding sentence: Sibghata Allah wa man ahsana min Allahi sibghah meaning: We are dyed with the sibghah of Allah, or the religion of Abraham is the sibghah of Allah, or as faith, the sibghah of Allah, or adhere to the sibghah of Allah.
And wa man ahsana min Allahi sibghah? Meaning: Which person is better in sibghah than Allah? And the intent is: Which sibghah from any person is better than the sibghah of Allah? The interrogation here is in the meaning of negation, indicating negation.
And wa nahnu lahu ‘ābidaūn; meaning: and we are submissive to Him, or and we are humbly submissive to Him, or and we are obedient to Him all of that has been said in the exegesis of worship (‘ibādah). Worship, as previously explained in Surah Al-Fatihah, is: absolute submission that stems from the soul with a feeling inspired by the correct belief in the Creator, the Glorified and Exalted; this is the correct worship required from man.
And nahnu lahu meaning to Allah alone, not to anyone else. Meaning: we do not associate anyone else with Him as worshippers (‘ābidūn). Therefore, the dependent element which is the preposition and its genitive was advanced over the dependent element which is ‘ābidūn for the sake of conferring restriction (ḥasr). And in this is an insinuation against the Jews and the Christians who worshipped other than Allah, the Glorified and Exalted.”
What are the key points from all of this?
The Two Main Interpretations
First Opinion: Metaphorical / Spiritual
Ṣibghah refers to the inward imprint of faith that Allah places in the hearts of believers.
It manifests in loyalty, obedience, belief in Allah and His prophets, and righteous action.
This faith becomes like a visible dye that distinguishes believers from others in their character and conduct.
The term is also linked to morals, natural disposition (fiṭrah), religion (dīn), divine law (sharī’ah), and even upbringing as in the poet’s example where a father “dyes” his children with his tribe’s noble values.
One interpreter even said it means circumcision, though Dr. Ahmed bin Jabir Al Miskiri (h) alternative translation adds a critical note that this narrows the concept too much.
Second Opinion: Historical / Ritual (Parallelism with some strands of Judaism and/or some strrands of Christian Baptism)
The word ṣibghah is used here as literary parallelism (mushākalah)—a rhetorical device where the Quran uses a term familiar to its audience to make a point, without adopting their literal meaning.
Background: Some Jews practiced ritual washing for repentance a practice that continued and evolved into Christian baptism (ma’mūdiyyah).
It was said that John the Baptist called people to repent and wash in the Jordan; Jesus also washed before receiving revelation.
The Aramaic term for this was ma’mūdhā (purification), which the Arabs Arabized into ma’mūd and derived ta’mīd (baptism).
It was noted that some Christian groups later baptized infants on the seventh day, using “holy water” kept in church basins. Water they believed contained remnants of the water Jesus used.
The Quranic twist: The verse is saying: “If you (Jews/Christians) dye/immerse yourselves in your ritual water, we (Muslims) have been dyed with Allah’s own baptism far superior.” It’s a rhetorical rebuttal, not an endorsement of the ritual.
3. Grammatical and Linguistic Analysis
Ṣibghah can be:
A verbal noun indicating manner/state (like jilsah = posture).
“(We take our) colour from Allah, and who is better than Allah at colouring. We are His worshippers.” (Qur’an 2:138) -Pickthall
“(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah: And who can baptize better than Allah? And it is He Whom we worship.” (Qur’an 2:138)-Yusuf Ali
“Indeed, those who have believed (amanu) and those who were Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians and all those who associated (ashraku) with Allah – Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is, over all things, Witness.” (Qur’an 22:17)
﷽
INTRODUCTION AND FRAMEWORK
I. Introduction: The Silence of the Apologists
If you were to tune into the Christian apologetic scene, they really seem to be on a tare about how Islam somehow is not in continuity with the Bible. At least that is their claim. Yet, they are awfully quiet about the biggest ritual in all of Christianity, namely the rite of baptism.
This fundamental ritual has been a matter of dispute among Christians until today. Does one get baptized in the name of Jesus only or in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?
At what age does one get baptized? Can babies get baptized or not? Does a Church less Christian have authority to baptize? Can any self-professed Christian baptize any other self-professed Christian?
Is baptism required for salvation? What happens when there is no water available? Is it enough to be baptized in water? What is baptism by the Holy Spirit?
In our view this is not discussed enough in apologetic spaces.
Baptism. That quirky ritual found neither in Judaism or Islam.
The Qur’an addresses this matter directly:
“(We take our) colour from Allah, and who is better than Allah at colouring. We are His worshippers.” (Qur’an 2:138) -Pickthall
“(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah: And who can baptize better than Allah? And it is He Whom we worship.” (Qur’an 2:138)-Yusuf Ali
“Indeed, those who have believed (amanu) and those who were Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians and all those who associated (ashraku) with Allah – Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is, over all things, Witness.” (Qur’an 22:17)
This article argues that Christian baptism, the central rite of Christianity, has no foundation in the Hebrew Bible, no clear authorization from Jesus, and no consistent theological meaning across Christian traditions. In contrast, the Qur’anic concept of “the dye of Allah” (ṣib’ghat Allāh) offers a superior framework for spiritual purification rooted in the primordial constitution (fiṭra) upon which Allah created humanity.
II. The Qur’anic Framework: Understanding “The Dye of Allah”
We have two English translations of Qur’an 2:138 as seen above. They are both sound in their meaning.
The Word sib’ghata: Literally translates to “dye” or “color”
The great scholar of tafsir Shaykh Muḥammed b. Yūsuf Aṭfayyish (r) has the following to say:
“{The dye of Allah (ṣibghat Allāh)} is the fiṭra of Allah, the primordial constitution upon which He created mankind. It is Islam, or divine enabling (tawfīq), or the conclusive proof (ḥujja); or it is the purification of the heart from unbelief and disobedience. It is likened to a dye in that it is outwardly manifest. As a dye is manifest. And an ornament; and in that it permeates the very depths of what is dyed, being firmly rooted therein; and in that by it man is set apart from all other animate creatures, and from the unbelievers, as a dyed garment is set apart. This is an explicit metaphor (istiʿāra taṣrīḥiyya), original (aṣliyya) and realized (taḥqīqiyya).”
“Alternatively, it was termed a “dye” by way of mushākala (assimilative phrasing) since it occurs adjacent to an elided expression, namely the Christians’ dyeing of their children in the water of baptism so that their Christianity might be confirmed. This is a yellow water, originally the water with which Jesus (peace be upon him) was washed on the third day after his birth; whenever it is depleted they add water to it, and they hold it to be a purification. It is said to be an Arabized rendering of maʿmūdhīnā. With a dotted dhāl. Meaning purity: water sanctified by what is recited over it from the Gospel, in which pregnant women then bathe.”
“Allah commanded the believers to say to the Christians: Say, we have believed in Allah, and Allah has dyed us with faith. A dye unlike the dye of baptism. {And who is better than Allah in dyeing?}. None is better than the dye of Allah, nor is any its equal, for it is Islam, which delivers from disgrace in this world and the next and bequeaths the good of both. {And we are His}. His alone, and no other’s, unlike your associating others with Him in worship, O company of Jews and Christian.”
Key Understanding: The “dye of Allah” is not an external ritual but the primordial constitution (fiṭra) upon which Allah created humanity. This stands in direct contrast to human-invented rituals like baptism. Shaykh Aṭfayyish’s commentary illuminates that the “dye of Allah” is not an external ritual but an internal purification of the heart from unbelief and disobedience. This presents a profound critique. While Christians debate the mechanics of baptism, the Qur’an directs attention to the spiritual transformation itself.
THE ETYMOLOGY AND ORIGINS OF BAPTISM
III. What is the Etymology of Baptism?
[B-1,Verb,G907, baptizo] “to baptize,” primarily a frequentative form of bapto, “to dip,” was used among the Greeks to signify the dyeing of a garment, or the drawing of water by dipping a vessel into another, etc. Plutarchus uses it of the drawing of wine by dipping the cup into the bowl (Alexis, 67) and Plato, metaphorically, of being overwhelmed with questions (Euthydemus, 277 D).
βάπτω to dip in water Dodson: βάπτω I dip, dye (a) I dip, (b) I dye. Strong’s: βάπτω to whelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid; in the New Testament only in a qualified or special sense, i.e. (literally) to moisten (a part of one’s person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye)
This linguistic connection is significant. The Greek word from which “baptism” derives is fundamentally about dyeing, or immersing something in a liquid to change its color. This connects directly to the Qur’anic concept of ṣib’ghat Allāh (the dye/color of Allah). What the Qur’an presents as a spiritual metaphor, the New Testament makes into a physical ritual, and even its linguistic roots betray this connection to the very concept the Qur’an uses.
IV. The Historical Problem: Baptism’s Absence from the Hebrew Bible
The first place baptism is ever mentioned in the New Testament is as follows:
“In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; Make His paths straight.’ ” Now John himself was clothed in camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Matthew 3:1-6).
There are a number of issues with this text.
It quotes from Isaiah 40:3. It is a quote mine. There is nothing anywhere in Isaiah that talks about the ritual of baptism. This brings us to our most devastating observation.
There is no mention of a baptism ritual anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. None of the Prophets ever preached it or practiced it or participated in it. None.
With this information in mind the following text is highly unlikely:
“Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins”
In fact, this whole issue is unresolved in the New Testament. It leads to a showdown between Jesus and the Jewish scholars with the matter apparently being unresolved.
“They arrived again in Jerusalem, and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders came to him. “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you authority to do this?” Jesus replied, “I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John’s baptism was it from heaven, or of human origin? Tell me!” They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ But if we say, ‘Of human origin’…” (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.) So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.” Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.” (Mark 11:27-33).
You can find the same in Matthew 21:23-32 and Luke 20:1-8.
John’s baptism: Was it from heaven, or of human origin? <<< This is the smoking gun.
If the ritual of baptism was practiced, preached or participated in by any of the Prophets of the Hebrew Bible we would not have this type of confrontation. Now, we are reading what is claimed to be the thoughts of the Jewish leadership.
“They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ But if we say, ‘Of human origin’…” (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.)
This begs the question. If the people really thought that John was a prophet then how can they flock to a person who is introducing a practice that is clearly not in continuity with Judaism?
How do we square these confrontations with the Jewish learned people when Jesus himself says the following:
“Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.” (Matthew 23:1-3)
So then what happens when they go to the teachers of the law and the Pharisees and ask them about baptism?
Matthew 21:23-32 has some additional information that Luke 20:1-8 and Mark 11:27-33 do not have.
Apparently not happy with the stalemate the writer of Matthew has Jesus try to one up the Jewish leadership.
“Then he said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things. “What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ ‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go. Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.” (Matthew 21:28–32)
However, this is nothing remarkable about what Jesus says here at all. It is not a rejoinder to the issue of where John got the authority to baptize.
Summary: No prophet in the Hebrew Bible ever preached, practiced, or participated in baptism. This is devastating to claims of continuity. This is not a minor detail. If baptism were essential for salvation, why would none of the prophets mention it or participate in it?
The Torah contains extensive legislation about purification rituals, sacrifices, and cleansing. Yet nothing resembling Christian baptism. The prophets called for repentance and turning to God, not ritual immersion in water for the forgiveness of sins.
V. Facts About John’s Baptism
Jesus replied:
“I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John’s baptism was it from heaven, or of human origin? Tell me!”
Facts about John’s baptism:
Jesus claims what John is doing has heavenly approval.
John wasn’t baptizing anyone in the name of Jesus.
John wasn’t baptizing anyone in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
John was baptizing people for the forgiveness of sins.
John’s baptizing involved no sacrifice or blood ritual.
Point 4 is explicitly stated in the following:
“And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Mark 1:4)
“He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Luke 3:3)
VI. The Disconnect Between John’s Baptism and Christian Baptism
The question that has to be asked in regard to John’s baptism.
For Christians today the ritual of baptism carries the following significance:
Death and Resurrection.
Going under water: Represents dying with Christ and being buried.
Coming up from water: Signifies rising to a new life, mirroring Jesus’ resurrection.
The baptism of John could not possibly have meant those things to him or his followers as John was not even aware of Jesus (in fact he-John had to inquire about him-Jesus) and Jesus at that point hasn’t even died on a cross. So it is not possible that baptism has that theologically loaded understanding.
THE PROBLEM OF JOHN THE BAPTIST.
VII. The Tension Between Jesus and John the Baptist
What the New Testament text reveal is that there is a tension between Jesus and John the Baptist. In many places the New Testament writers go out of their way to belittle John the Baptist. As if he was a rival to Jesus.
The New Testament has Jesus have a dig at John the Baptist.
“Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” (Matthew 11:11)
“I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” (Luke 7:28)
In fact, this is a dig at all the Old Testament Prophets. That among all born among women there is none greater than John the Baptist. However, even the one who has the status of the ‘least’ in the kingdom of God/heaven is greater than John!
“Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:19)
“John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Luke 3:16)
What do you mean untie his sandals? You are not even worthy to carry them much less untie them!
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Matthew 3:11)
So whether John said he was unworthy to carry Jesus’ sandals or untie the straps of his sandals is beside the point. The point is that Jesus is greater than John the Baptist.
VIII. John’s Uncertainty: The Decisive Problem
The New Testament records a very difficult and strange interaction between prophet Jesus and prophet John.
“For he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.” (Luke 1:15)
“After Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee. When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?” Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.” (Matthew 11:1-5)
There are lots of issues with this:
John is a Prophet. He is filled with the Holy Spirit (even before he is born). Why does the Holy Spirit not know who Jesus is? How can a Prophet from God not recognize another Prophet from God?
Why does Jesus inform John about things he (John) already heard?
It is like this: John was informed Jesus performed a light show. So John wants to know if Jesus is a Prophet of God. So Jesus says, ‘Tell him I performed a light show’. Isn’t John already aware of this?
“When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messiah.”
“Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.”
Basically go back and inform John about things John is already informed about! What?
Why does Jesus give information to John that could also be true of a false messiah?
“For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Matthew 24:24)
How does Jesus feel that this information would be convincing to John?
Jesus is essentially saying to John: “I am the Messiah because I perform miracles.” But Jesus also warns that false messiahs will perform miracles. Therefore, miracles are not a reliable test of prophetic authenticity. John, being a prophet, should have known this. Why would Jesus offer a test that even Jesus himself says is unreliable?
It is very obvious that much to keen eyes that much of the information in the New Testament is convoluted.
John dies without ever knowing or declaring that Jesus is the Messiah.
There is not a single text anywhere in the New Testament that records John the Baptist explicitly uttering a statement of final, settled belief in Jesus before he (John) dies.
His final recorded words or actions regarding Jesus are a question of intense uncertainty from a prison cell, followed shortly by his sudden execution. Source: (Matthew 11:2-3) & (Matthew 14:10)
Since the Holy Spirit never guided John concerning Jesus how will he guide in the future?
“Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.” (Luke 1:11-15)
Question: How can the Holy Spirit be expected to guide into ‘all truth’ in the future if we have demonstrable evidence he hasn’t done so in the past?
Question: How can Muslims fault Christians for not seeing the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) in their scriptures when John the Baptist (a Prophet filled with the Holy Spirit) who saw Jesus, touched Jesus (he baptized him) and witnessed a voice from heaven STILL didn’t know that Jesus was the Messiah?
Are we Muslims being harsh with the Christians in light of this evidence?
According to the New Testament and the witness of John the Baptist, the title ‘Son of God’ had no special meaning that marked out Jesus from others.
Think about this. John the Baptist himself baptized Jesus. John the Baptist hears the voice from heaven saying:
“This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” – Matthew’s version the voice addresses other than Jesus.
“You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” – Mark’s version the voice addresses Jesus.
John the Baptist, a Prophet, filled with the Holy Spirit was sitting in prison and asked about Jesus:
“Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”
This is devastating. This shows us clear as day that this title ‘Son of God’ addressed from heaven itself was not enough to deter John from further inquiry!
This proves that the appellation, ‘Son of God‘ was nothing remarkable to John.
We discussed the idea that the Bible never presents God has having ‘only one son’ here:
IX. John the Baptist Does Not Quote a Single Reference in the Hebrew Bible to Validate Jesus
John the Baptist does not quote a single reference in the Hebrew Bible to validate Jesus. He is uncertain about who Jesus is.
The only reference that Christian apologist can think of is the following:
Then they said to him, “Who are you, that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?” He said: “I am ‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.” (John 1:22-23)
If someone reads the above text, the name “Jesus” is nowhere to be found.
John is quoting Isaiah 40:3, which talks about preparing the way for “the Lord” (Yahweh in the original Hebrew). The connection to Jesus is an inference made by the author of the Gospel and later Christian theology, not a literal statement by John in that verse.
X. Jesus Validates John by Misquoting the Hebrew Bible
Jesus validates John by quoting references in the Hebrew Bible that he (Jesus) says is about John.
What is interesting about the gospels having Jesus testify to John is that this is actually a self-serving agenda. It is well known at this point that John precedes Jesus. So the Gospel writers have Jesus mention John being in the Hebrew scriptures because all the text that Jesus does quote end up quickly brushing John aside to point to Jesus.
“This is the one about whom it is written: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.” (Matthew 11:10)
“This is the one about whom it is written: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.” (Luke 7:27)
These are actually misquotes of Malachi 3:1
“Behold, I am sending My messenger to clear the way before Me, and the Sovereign you seek shall come to the temple suddenly. As for the angel of the covenant that you desire, he is already coming.” (Malachi 3:1) – Source: (https://www.sefaria.org/Malachi.3.1)
“Behold I send My angel, and he will clear a way before Me. And suddenly, the Lord Whom you seek will come to His Temple. And behold! The angel of the covenant, whom you desire, is coming, says the Lord of Hosts.” Source: (https://www.chabad.org/ Translation of Malachi 3:1)
The New Testament misquotations are a shift in pronouns.
When Matthew and Luke quote this verse (Matthew 11:10 and Luke 7:27), they make a significant change: they render the pronouns in the second-person.
“Behold, I send My messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.”
The “your” here refers to Jesus. The New Testament authors are not citing the LXX or MT directly but are adapting the text to apply it to Jesus as the Messiah.
The infamous misattribution of Mark 1:2-3:
Mark’s use of this passage has a unique, and more famous, textual issue. Mark 1:2-3 is a composite quotation, weaving together Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3.
“as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: ‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way,’ ‘the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,'” (Mark 1:2-3).
The problem is that the first quotation is from Malachi, while only the second is from Isaiah. This raises a question: why is the entire quotation attributed to Isaiah?
A Well-Attested Reading: The phrase “in Isaiah the prophet” has the support of the earliest and most important manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and others). This is almost certainly Mark’s original wording.
A Later “Correction”: Some later manuscripts change the wording to “in the prophets” (as seen in the King James Version). This is widely considered a scribal correction to resolve the apparent conflict of attributing a Malachi quote to Isaiah.
“And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come.” (Matthew 11:14)
So here Jesus validates John by claiming he is the return of Elijah and is thought to be a reference to the following text:
“See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes.” (Malachi 4:5).
THE TIMING PROBLEM
XI. John in Prison Before Jesus’s Baptism
Look at the following text.
“John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” And with many other words John exhorted the people and proclaimed the good news to them. But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of his marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the other evil things he had done, Herod added this to them all: He locked John up in prison. When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”” (Luke 3:16–22)
“At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the reports about Jesus, and he said to his attendants, “This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him.” Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, for John had been saying to him: “It is not lawful for you to have her.” Herod wanted to kill John, but he was afraid of the people, because they considered John a prophet. On Herod’s birthday the daughter of Herodias danced for the guests and pleased Herod so much that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. Prompted by her mother, she said, “Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist.” The king was distressed, but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he ordered that her request be granted and had John beheaded in the prison. His head was brought in on a platter and given to the girl, who carried it to her mother. John’s disciples came and took his body and buried it. Then they went and told Jesus.” (Matthew 14:12)
“But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of his marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the other evil things he had done, Herod added this to them all: He locked John up in prison.”
This happens before Jesus is baptized.
This is a problem because it never says that John was released from prison. According to Matthew, John is beheaded in prison. However, Matthew has it that John has already baptized Jesus.
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented. As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.“” (Matthew 3:11-17)
Now, Christian apologists will point to the following text in Luke:
“When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized.”
It uses a passive participle. This specific grammatical structure can describe an action that happened prior.
To which we reply: “Yes, correct this is what the text indicates. However, it can still read that way and appear before Luke 3:19-20.”
Especially if this is written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it is preserved and passed down to us unadulterated.
Notice that Mark mentions John being in prison immediately after the baptism.
“John wore clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. And this was his message: “After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him. After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”” (Mark 1:6-15)
All of the previous texts lead the sincere Christian truth seeker into some very uncomfortable conclusions.
JESUS AND BAPTISM
XII. Jesus Never Baptized Anyone (Or Did He?)
“After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.” (John 3:22)
ἐβάπτιζεν the verb ebaptizen (was baptizing) is imperfect active, meaning it was a continuous, ongoing action physically attributed to Jesus.
“Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John. (although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.) So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.” (John 4:1-3)
Notice the parenthetical clarification: “although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.” This is unique to John’s Gospel.
The text says that it was not Jesus who baptized but his disciples. This raises the curious question: Who baptized Jesus’ disciples? The New Testament does not record a single instance of any of Jesus’ disciples getting baptized. It is simply assumed.
If Jesus gave this command to his disciples we wouldn’t have the following controversy:
“While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.” (Acts 10:44-48)
Why would people object to gentiles being baptized if Jesus instructed his 12 disciples to do exactly that?
If Jesus instructed elders and hierarchy for his church how could people question Peter and what he was doing?
Also note that these people received the Holy Spirit before being baptized.
XIII. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Matthew 3:11)
“John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”” (Luke 3:16)
Jesus never did any such thing. That is why the Christians say this ‘baptism’ is symbolic or spiritual. It refers to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The “baptism of the Holy Spirit” becomes a spiritualized concept that cannot be empirically verified. Insh’Allah we will revisit this later in the article.
XIV. The So-Called Great Commission is a Forgery and a Contradiction
Note that in Mark 16:15-16 there is no baptismal formula given.
“And he said unto them, Go you into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:15-16)
Notice the baptism formula given.
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 28:19)
How are the unbaptized going to go and baptize others?
A missed opportunity: What the New Testament should have done is had Jesus rise from the dead and then in his glorified body baptize all his disciples and baptize them with fire.
Most critical scholars acknowledge that Mark 16:9-20 is not original to the Gospel of Mark. It is absent from the earliest and most important manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus). The fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that it was absent from most Greek manuscripts. This is widely considered a later addition to resolve the abrupt ending at Mark 16:8 with ‘for they were afraid.'”
“Other ancient authorities omit verses 9–20. Some ancient authorities conclude Mark instead with the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.”
“This passage is regarded as inspired and canonical scripture even if not written by Mark. As it is missing from some important manuscripts, it is possible that Mark did not write it. On the other hand, he would hardly have left his Gospel unfinished at verse 8. Many think that the original ending was lost at a very early date and that this ending was composed at the end of the apostolic period to take its place.”
1. The ancient authorities had no problem with Jesus sending out his disciples with no mention of baptism.
2. The Church is the authority. Even if Mark did not write it. The Church has already read it as authoritative.
3. The Church admits that the original ending may have been lost, and this ending was composed. It does not say by whom.
BAPTISM IN EARLY CHRISTIAN PRACTICE
XV. The Evidence from Acts: Contradictions and Developments
“Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.” (Acts 18:24-26)
Look at what Paul does when Apollos is away.
“While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all.” (Acts 19:1-7)
The above text is striking.
These people who were baptized by John apparently never heard that there is a Holy Spirit. You have to wonder what type of teaching they actually received.
Also note that the above text says they received the Holy Spirit after being baptized. This is contrasted with (Acts 10:44-48) where they received the Holy Spirit before being baptized.
Here this text blatantly shows that John’s baptism is inadequate. Paul had them all baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus!
THE MANDAEAN CONNECTION
XVII. Enter the Mandeans: The Other Religion That Practices Baptism
“Indeed, those who have believed (amanu) and those who were Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians and all those who associated (ashraku) with Allah. Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is, over all things, Witness.” (Qur’an 22:17)
In Arabic, the Mandaeans are commonly known as aṣ-Ṣābiʾūn (الصابئون) or colloquially as al-Ṣubba (صُبَّة)
The Mandaean book of John also hints at historical tensions with other religions of the region. Specifically Christianity and Judaism. Parts of the book try to discredit both of these traditions. Mandaeans believe the mother of Jesus was Mandaean and became pregnant by witchcraft or some other source other than her husband. The book portrays her son Jesus as a deceiver who abandons his Mandaean heritage.
Ruha, the mother of darkness is sometimes called the holy spirit, a possible dig against the Christian holy spirit. The book of John (Draša d-Yaḥyā) also refers to the Jewish god as Adonai, called ‘Adunay’ in Mandaean. It characterizes him as an evil figure as well as his book, the Torah as a book of falsehoods.
In the Mandaean book of John when Jesus is baptized the voice/letter from heaven informs John: “You baptize the deceiver” and then the ruha, or the spirit makes an appearance. This spirit is a malevolent figure according to the Mandaeans.
For John the Baptist and for the Mandaeans baptism is not a death and resurrection ritual!
The Mandaean Parallel is Illuminating:
The Mandaeans also practice baptism as a central ritual.
They view Jesus as a deceiver and John the Baptist as their true prophet.
Their rituals and understanding of baptism differ radically from Christian theology.
This demonstrates that baptism was a contested practice in the ancient Near East, not a clear, divinely-mandated ritual unique to Christianity.
XVI. The “Evil Jesus” Problem
There could be some truth to what the Mandaeans say.
The New Testament itself mentions an evil Jesus.
“And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus:” (Acts 13:6)
There is no power in the name Jesus. Jesus was a common name at that time. It could refer to an evil doer. This is why it is quite possible that the New Testament is talking about a Jesus entirely different from what we as Muslims believe.
“For if a person comes and preaches another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or you receive a different spirit, which you had not received, or a different gospel, which you had not accepted, you put up with it splendidly!” (2 Corinthians 11:4)
Just so Christians could be clear that they were not being baptized in the name of evil Jesus there was always a modifier.
Observe!
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:38)
“(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)” (Acts 8:16)
“And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.” (Acts 10:48)
“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:5)
In Acts 19:5, a number of “Western” textual witnesses add Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. translated as: ‘Christ for the forgiveness of sins’.
All of this to prevent Christians from being baptized into generic Jesus or evil Jesus.
Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus.
‘Lord’ and ‘Christ’ are identifiers and modifiers so the people are not confused about which Jesus they are being baptized in. (Good Jesus or Evil Jesus).
THE THEOLOGY OF BAPTISM
XVIII. For the Christians the Meaning Behind Baptism
For the Christians the meaning behind baptism is spelled out for them.
“Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” (Romans 6:3–4)
As we mentioned earlier in this article the baptism of John could not possibly have meant those things to him or his followers as John was not even aware of Jesus (in fact he-John had to inquire about him-Jesus) and Jesus at that point hasn’t even died on a cross. So it is not possible that baptism has that theologically loaded understanding.
With the Mandaeans recognizing Jesus as a deceiver and a disciple who betrayed John the Baptist, then their frequent baptisms also cannot have the theologically loaded understanding that Christians have.
XIX. Baptism by the Holy Spirit and Other Christian Disputes Over Baptism
Recall that in our article earlier we mentioned: The “baptism of the Holy Spirit” becomes a spiritualized concept that cannot be empirically verified.
“Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'” (Acts 2:38)
This is a promise, not a suggestion. It is addressed to everyone. Not just apostles, not just first-century believers. It is unconditional: repent → be baptized → receive the Spirit.
The question is: do we take this promise seriously? If so, then:
Every believer should expect to receive the Holy Spirit in a real, experiential way
The Spirit’s presence should be discernible. Whether through tongues, prophecy, healing, or other manifestations
The historic churches’ lack of these manifestations is not a sign of faithfulness, but a sign of loss or quenching of the Spirit
A Hard Question For the Historic Churches:
If the Holy Spirit is given to every believer at baptism (or confirmation/chrismation), then:
Why do believers in those traditions not consistently experience the Spirit’s power?
Why are the gifts of 1 Corinthians 12 (tongues, prophecy, healing, miracles) not active in their congregations?
Why did the Pentecostal movement have to emerge in the 20th century to recover what the New Testament presents as normal?
The honest answer, from many within those traditions, is:
Cessationism – the belief that the miraculous gifts ceased with the apostles.
Sacramentalism – the belief that the Spirit is given through the ritual itself, regardless of experience.
Loss of expectation – generations of Christians have not been taught to expect the Spirit’s manifest presence.
But the New Testament does not teach cessationism. It does not separate the Spirit from experience. And it does not promise a Spirit whose presence is invisible and undetectable.
XX. Charismatic-Pentecostal-Holy Roller Churches Don’t Get the Full Hot Dog
Even those who argue that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is alive and well are very selective on what aspects of the Holy Spirit are seen and heard.
Examples.
“When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.” (Acts 2:1-4)
Who hears this rushing violent wind from heaven these days? Who witnesses tongues of fire upon the heads of Christians?
XXI. Baptism – Full Water Immersion and Christians Being Overly Ritualistic
How do these Christians deal with people who suffer from ablutophobia?
One Christian mentions that his seminary professor instructed him that if the one being baptized came up out of the water with their head dry, then they would need to be immersed again!
One Christian retells a story about a member in their church who was disabled and could not go under water. So after discussion the elders arranged for this person to be lifted into a hot tub where the baptism was given by pouring water over their head.
What about situations in the desert when you have no water? The person is dying and they want to convert and be baptized?
These practical problems expose the human origin of the ritual.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
XXII. Summary of Findings
1. Baptism Has No Hebrew Bible Foundation
No prophet preached, practiced, or participated in baptism.
The Torah is silent on this ritual.
The Isaiah 40:3 quotation is a “quote mine” about preparation, not baptism.
2. John’s Baptism Was Novel and Unresolved
The Mark 11:27-33 confrontation proves this.
Jewish religious leaders could not determine its source.
Jesus refused to answer the question.
If it had scriptural basis, the leaders would have known.
3. The Timing and Chronology Problems
John was apparently in prison before Jesus’s baptism.
A beheaded John cannot baptize Jesus.
The passive participle in Luke doesn’t resolve the problem.
4. John’s Baptism Could Not Mean What Christians Claim
John baptized before Jesus’s death/resurrection.
No death/resurrection symbolism was possible.
John’s baptism was merely for repentance and forgiveness.
This contradicts Paul’s theology of baptism.
5. Jesus Never Baptized Anyone
John 4:1-3 explicitly says Jesus didn’t baptize.
His disciples baptized, but we never learn who baptized them.
This raises serious questions about the ritual’s importance.
6. Jesus Failed to Baptize with the Holy Spirit
John prophesied this (Matthew 3:11).
It never happened as described.
It becomes a spiritualized, unverifiable concept.
7. The Great Commission Has Textual Problems
Two different versions (Mark and Matthew).
Mark’s version has no baptismal formula.
The Trinitarian formula appears only in Matthew 28:19.
The longer ending of Mark is a later addition.
8. The “Evil Jesus” Problem
Acts mentions Bar-Jesus (a sorcerer).
Paul warns about “another Jesus” (2 Corinthians 11:4).
Christians use modifiers to distinguish (“Lord Jesus,” “Jesus Christ”).
This suggests confusion about which Jesus was being preached.
9. Mandaeans Provide Historical Parallels
They practice baptism but view Jesus as a deceiver.
Their Book of John calls Jesus a “deceiver” at baptism.
This shows baptism was a contested practice.
10. John’s Uncertainty Is the Decisive Argument
John was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth.
He witnessed the heavens open and heard the divine voice.
Yet he still asked: “Are you the one who is to come?”
If John could be uncertain, why trust Christian interpretations?
Muslims are not being harsh with Christians; John’s failure proves the point.
XXIII. The Qur’anic Alternative
The opening verse (Qur’an 22:17) highlights that Allah alone will judge between the various religious communities. This is a reminder that ultimate authority rests with Allah, not human traditions.
“The dye of Allah (ṣib’ghata Allāh)” is a powerful metaphor for the natural constitution (fiṭra) upon which Allah created humanity. This stands in direct contrast to human-invented rituals like baptism.
Shaykh Aṭfayyish’s commentary illuminates: the “dye of Allah” is not an external ritual but an internal purification of the heart from unbelief and disobedience. This presents a profound critique. While Christians debate the mechanics of baptism, the Qur’an directs attention to the spiritual transformation itself.
XXIV. Conclusion: The Crux of the Matter
Our analysis demonstrates that baptism is a ritual without clear biblical foundation, differently understood across Christian and Mandaean traditions, and historically disconnected from the practice of the Hebrew prophets.
The most powerful observation is this: If the Jewish religious leaders, who sat in Moses’ seat and were experts in the Torah, could not determine the source of John’s baptism, how can Christians today be certain of its divine origin?
The most profound observation concerns John the Baptist’s lack of certainty about Jesus:
“Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?” (Matthew 11:2-3)
John who is filled with the Holy Spirit even before birth (Luke 1:15) could be uncertain despite:
Being Jesus’s cousin
Baptizing Jesus
Witnessing the heavens open
Hearing the divine voice declaring Jesus as the Son
Are we Muslims too harsh on Christians?
How can we Muslims be overly critical with Christians for not finding Muhammed (saw) in their scriptures when John himself, who had direct experience of Jesus, remained uncertain as to who Jesus was?
If John the Baptist who was the greatest man born of a woman according to Jesus himself (Matthew 11:11), could have direct contact with Jesus and still not be certain of his identity, then how can we as Muslims think that Christians will recognize Muhammed (saw) in their scriptures?
If the Holy Spirit who was supposed to guide into all truth left John in a state of confusion about Jesus, then:
Why should Christians believe the Holy Spirit will guide them into all truth regarding their own scriptures?
Why should Muslims accept Christian interpretations of ambiguous Old Testament prophecies when the very prophet who baptized Jesus couldn’t figure out who Jesus was?
XXV. Final Appeal
The Qur’an offers a superior alternative. The “dye of Allah” is not an external ritual but the primordial constitution (fiṭra) upon which Allah created humanity. True purification comes from turning to Allah, not from immersion in water, regardless of who performs it or with what formula.
As the Qur’an states:
“Indeed Allah is, over all things, Witness.” (Qur’an 22:17)
Allah alone knows the hearts. It is He who will judge between the communities, not just on the basis of their rituals, but on the basis of their sincerity, intentions, faith and actions.
“Invite to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and kind advice, and only debate with them in the best manner. Surely your Lord knows best who has strayed from His Way and who is guided.” (Qur’an 16:125)
“And it is not for the believers to go forth [to battle] all at once. For there should separate from every division of them a group [remaining] to obtain understanding in the religion and warn their people when they return to them that they might be cautious.” (Qur’an 9:122)
“And who is better in speech than one who invites to Allah and does righteousness and says, “Indeed, I am of the Muslims.” (Qur’an 41:33)
﷽
Let us tell you what Da’wah is not. Da’wah is not posting pictures of the wives of Christian apologist in bikini and other inappropriate clothing. This is an act of kufr. Those who are pleased with it are pleased with acts of kufr. If The person who post this dies without repenting from it they upon something other than Islam. Yes! It is that serious.
Da’wah is not saying that you will start telling people that a self proclaimed ex-Muslim girl took ‘backshots’ in the desert simply becuase she spreads lies about the Blessed Prophet (saw). Her lies do not justify your lies. This too is an act of kufr. Those who are pleased with it are pleased with acts of kufr. If the person dies without repenting from this they die upon something other than Islam.
Da’wah is not ‘dunking’ on others. No one’s goal should be to ‘destroy’ someone. We don’t ‘own’ others. Allah is the one who owns us all! We are all of us broken and needy before Allah.
Can you imagine the atheist, the agnostic, the undecided seeker? They see this very nasty discourse between Muslims and Christians. Why would they choose to become either? They may reason to themselves, that if religion causes me to be an angry hateful and vicious individual what is the point of religion?!
Da’wah is not argument or claims of superiority. It’s an authentic, genuine and sincere invitation to Allah with dignity. What da’wah really is, what’s it’s obligation, who should speak (and within what knowledge), and the Qur’anic method of wisdom, gentle counsel and best manner. It closes with the core truth: you invite, but Allah ultimately is the guide.
We strongly encourage everyone to listen to this wonderful and beneficial talk on the Call to Islam (Da’wah) by Shaykh Hatim Al Abdisalam and Shaykh Muhanna Al Harthy. It offers valuable insights, practical guidance, and inspiration for anyone interested in conveying the message of Islam with wisdom and compassion.
So by mercy from Allah, [O Muhammed], you were lenient with them. And if you had been rude and harsh in heart, they would have fled from about you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult them in the matter. And when you have decided, then rely upon Allah. Indeed, Allah loves those who rely upon Him. (Qur’an 3:159)
The example of da’wah to Pharaoh.
“O eminent ones, I have not known you to have a god other than me.” (Qur’an 28:38)
“Go to Pharaoh. Indeed, he has transgressed.” (Qur’an 20:24)
So we can see that Pharaoh has committed the highest form of sin against Allah (swt) namely the claim of divinity! Allah (swt) also says that he was a transgressor!
Nonetheless look at the way in which Allah (swt) ask Moses and Aaron (peace be upon them both) to conduct themselves while speaking with him.
“And speak to him with gentle speech that perhaps he may be reminded or fear Allah.” (Qur’an 20:44)
Christians and Atheist can say some very dispicable and vile things about our faith. This does not mean that we respond to them in kind. It can be frustraing. Especially for us as Muslims. When engaging with Christians, especially the low hanging fruiti among them, they insult the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) but we cannot turn around and insult Jesus (as).
“Do not insult what they invoke besides Allah or they will insult Allah spitefully out of ignorance. This is how We have made each people’s deeds appealing to them. Then to their Lord is their return, and He will inform them of what they used to do.” (Qur’an 6:108)
The majority of the companions and indeed the majority of people you will meet in your life who become Muslims did so because of the good conduct and charachter of Muslims.
“Virtue and evil are not equal. If you replace evil habits with virtuous ones, you will certainly find that your enemies will become your intimate friends.” (Qur’an 41:34)
We are human and at times we may slip. Allah (swt) reminds us in such occasions.
“But if you forget, then remember your Lord, and say, “I trust my Lord will guide me to what is more right than this.” (Qur’an 18:24)
We should ask ourselves if we embody the following verse:
“And who is better in speech than one who invites to Allah and does righteousness and says, “Indeed, I am of the Muslims.” (Qur’an 41:33)
1. What is Da’wah?
Da’wah literally means “invitation” or “calling.” It is inviting people to know Allah and understand Islam. It is not about winning debates or pressuring people to accept Islam.
2. The Purpose of Da’wah
The goal is to:
Help people know the truth about Islam.
Remove misconceptions.
Guide people to worship Allah alone.
Earn Allah’s pleasure by conveying His message.
A Muslim is responsible for conveying the message, not for making someone accept it.
3. Qualities of a Good Da’ee (Caller to Islam)
The discussion emphasizes that a da’ee should have:
Knowledge: Speaking based on authentic Islamic teachings.
Wisdom: Choosing the right words and the right time.
Patience: Accepting rejection without anger.
Good manners: Being humble, truthful, gentle, and respectful.
4. The Best Method of Da’wah
The most effective invitation is often through:
Good character.
Helping others.
Being honest in business and daily life.
Showing kindness and mercy.
Listening before speaking.
People are often attracted to Islam by the behavior of Muslims before they are convinced by arguments.
5. Common Mistakes in Da’wah
The discussion warns against:
Arguing aggressively.
Speaking without knowledge.
Insulting other religions.
Trying to force people to accept Islam.
Becoming impatient when someone does not accept the message.
6. The Prophet Muhammed’s Example
The Prophet ﷺ is presented as the greatest example of da’wah because he:
Treated everyone with mercy.
Forgave those who harmed him.
Answered questions calmly.
Never forced anyone to become Muslim.
Continued inviting people despite years of hardship.
7. Responsibility of Every Muslim
Da’wah is not limited to scholars. Every Muslim can participate by:
Being a good example.
Sharing authentic Islamic knowledge.
Helping neighbors and colleagues.
Answering questions honestly.
Referring difficult questions to knowledgeable scholars.
8. Guidance Belongs to Allah
One of the main lessons is that success in da’wah is not measured by the number of converts. Success is delivering the message sincerely and correctly. Guidance is in Allah’s hands.
Key Takeaway
The discussion presents da’wah as a lifelong act of worship built on sincerity, knowledge, wisdom, patience, and excellent character. It reminds Muslims that their conduct is often the strongest invitation to Islam, and that their duty is simply to convey the message faithfully while leaving the outcome to Allah.
A remeinder to us at PrimaQur’an and our team.
We, the Ibāḍīs, are distinguished from other sects and schools by our noble character and refined conduct. We rise above those who slander us and we are not people of insults, and this has been the way of our forefathers, whose footsteps we follow. That is why everyone who visits Ibadi communities in Oman, Zanzibar, Algeria, Libya etc does not hear foul or offensive words.
Anas ibn Mālik (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “The Prophet ﷺ was never insulting, nor obscene, nor one who cursed.”
Therefore, regardless of what has been said about us or what will be said, we remain committed to the manners of the Prophet, the manners of true believers.
Prima Quran 