“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)
﷽
The Qur’an — like the Bible, does not set down the age for marriage.
“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 ease for him in this matter.” (Qur’an 65:4)
The above verse can be used to suggest that a person can marry a girl who has not even had menses. In science, one of these terms is called Amenorrhea.
As long as there is ovulation, a woman can still get pregnant.
Again, the Qur’an does not give a definite age requirement. It simply gives some guidelines.
For example:
“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)
This text says nothing about the age of marrying any female. It is simply stating that their property will be held in trust until two things happen.
A) Is that the female is balaghu. Says absolutely nothing about what age would be appropriate for marriage.
B) That this female can have her property delivered to her when you ‘perceive in them the right judgment’.
The word balagha comes from the root word blgh, which means ‘to reach’ or ‘to attain’. Today it is used to reference eloquence in speech. Or at the very least, being fluid in speaking.
People try and make what they perceive to be a logical jump by surmising that if one has to be in ‘the right judgment’ to take ownership of property, that this implies somehow a female who is a ‘teenager’ or ‘young adult’ would also need to be in ‘the right judgment’ to bare children.
Well, according to the designer Allah — who knows best — that is not the case. Insh’Allah, we will discuss this further down the article in the section on analyzing this through evolution.
We think of nothing more insulting to women than to ask them to take an IQ test to determine cognitive awareness. Before we get married, we need you to take a test to determine the following:
Your ability to reason.
Memory — ability to recall information.
Problem-solving skills.
Verbal ability.
Mental acuity.
Spatial awareness
This cruel interpretation of the text would not allow for vulnerable women to get married. We are talking about women with emotional disorders (there are an array of them).
Abu Musa narrated that : The Messenger of Allah said: “There is no marriage except with a Wali.”
What is interesting about the above hadith is that the Hanafi school understands this to refer to the above category of women (vulnerable women due to various facts) as a nikah is a contract and she can:
a) have a guarantor for her marital contract — a wali
b) not have a guarantor for her marital contract.
Orphans are not necessarily people with no assets or no wealth. Maybe not appropriate here, but no one thinks of Bruce Wayne (the character) otherwise known as ‘Batman’ as someone with no wealth or assets. An orphan, rather, is someone (anyone) who, if they do not have guardians and guarantors, can be taken advantage of.
Note the following verse:
“And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and there was beneath it a treasure for them, and their father had been righteous. So your Lord intended that they reach maturity (ashuddahuma) and extract their treasure as a mercy from your Lord. And I did not of my own accord. That is the interpretation of that about which you could not have patience.”(Qur’an 18:82)
ashuddahu comes from an Arabic root meaning fully tight, a rope that is pulled from both ends so that it is firm and not loose. (Indicating that they are now standing straight on their feet)
The following verse dispels any idea about females needing to be in ‘the right judgment’ to bare children.
“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend their means on them.” (Qur’an 4:34)
Also, notice something else about the text above in “let him consume in reason” — maybe a poor man who has taken in orphans that he has a right over some of their property/wealth in reason. It does not specify any amount. This is delegated to an authority outside the Qur’an. If there is any dispute, an arbiter or legal authority will be brought in.
“O you who have believed, let those whom your right hands possess and those who have not [yet] reached puberty among you (yablughu l-huluma minkum) ask permission of you [before entering] at three times: before the dawn prayer and when you put aside your clothing [for rest] at noon and after the night prayer. [These are] three times of privacy for you. There is no blame upon you nor upon them beyond these [periods], for they continually circulate among you — some of you, among others. Thus does Allah make clear to you the verses; and Allah is Knowing and Wise. And when the children among you reach puberty(balagha l-atfalu minkumu l-huluma), let them ask permission [at all times] as those before them have done. Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses; and Allah is Knowing and Wise.” (Qur’an 24:58-59)
There are several keywords one can look into in the above text:
Aftal-meaning children or toddlers.
Balagha hulm (it is tied with the wet dream) is a sign of puberty. Why do you think the word hulum, which is connected to dreams, is connected with balagh?
Qur’an 21: 5 & Qur’an 12:44.
Balagha (eloquence and clearness) Bulugh (a boy or a girl reaches the age of clarity)
These two words above have the same trilateral root in the Arabic language and are closely connected together.
A Muslim preacher absolutely shuts the Christian antagonist down with one simple question.
We love Brother Sabeel and his gentle character. (We pray that Allah continues to bless and support him.) This video we feel was a missed opportunity to both capitalize and educate Christians on a fundamental point that they constantly use to assail the Blessed Messenger (saw)
Now notice that this man is quite combative. His body language, invading personal space, everything about him is combative. He is trying to corner this Muslim brother, Sabeel Ahmed, over the age of Ayesha (ra)
Sabeel Ahmed is, of course, one of those Muslims who are apologists who often don’t state plainly their view on something. Now notice that @14:30 the whole flow of this exchange completely changes for a moment. Once, the man made the mistake of saying ‘according to this book (the Bible), marriage to a child is wrong.’ Sabeel asked him simply to show him where this was stated? Show him one verse. The man IMMEDIATELY disengaged eye contact and turned towards the other man.
Sabeel Ahmed (May Allah bless him for his efforts) did not do three things here.
Point out that getting married does not equate to consummation in the marriage. For example, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette did not consummate their marriage for seven years, to cite a famous example.
In many parts of the Indian subcontinent—Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, and some Muslim communities—historical child marriage did not mean the couple began marital life immediately.
Instead, it typically involved:
Marriage ceremony (vivāha / nikāḥ) at a young age
A purely social and ritual event intended to “join the families” or fulfill cultural norms.
Gṛha-praveśa (the bride entering the husband’s home) years later
This was the actualstart of married life.
Consummation only after puberty
Consummation was normally delayed until the bride reached maturity. Many communities explicitly forbade cohabitation or intercourse until then.
This is actually from the Qur’an.
“There is no blame if you divorce womenbefore the marriage is consummated or the dowry is settled. But give them a compensation—the rich according to his means and the poor according to his. A reasonable compensation is an obligation on the good-doers. And if you divorce them before consummating the marriage but after deciding on a dowry, pay half of the dowry, unless the wife graciously waives it or the husband graciously pays in full. Graciousness is closer to righteousness. And do not forget kindness among yourselves. Surely Allah is All-Seeing of what you do.” (Qur’an 2:236-237)
It should be noted that in Islam the schools of jurisprudence need consent from the woman or they need her not to object. Consent is not something attainable from a child.
2. He didn’t stay focused on that point! 16 minutes of intense discussion, and he let that man right off the hook. If he could get the man to admit that the Bible does not give an age for marriage, he could have:
3. Ask the man on what basis he objects to it?
SCIENCE / EVOLUTION — on what AGE is appropriate for a female to bear children.
Let us say, for the sake of argument, that you put aside religion and culture for a moment. Let us argue from the perspective of biological science. According to evolution, when is a Homo sapien female able to have a child?
“That was the Way (sunnata) of Allah in the case of those who passed away of old, and you will not find any change in the Way (lisunnati)of Allah.” (Qur’an 33:62)
So, whatever comes about that is also corroborated by science is something that Allah has decreed. We believe there is no Muslim who would dispute this.
“Girls usually get their first menstrual period when they’re 12 or 13. It’s a sign that your body is maturing, so that one day if you want to, you should be able to have a baby.”
So, for all the atheists and agnostics and those who decry that there is no objective morality and yet attack Islamic oral traditions that ascribe to the Blessed Messenger-saw that he married a female at a very young age, it should be noted that nature has determined that the moment a female has menses and produces eggs -she can have a baby.
There is no one that can dispute this.
That means that if we completely remove religion from the picture, nature—aka—evolution has decreed that a human female is viable to propagate her species at a certain age range.
It has nothing to with education, it has nothing to do with mental capacity and everything to do with her ability to have children.
So the Qur’andoes not give any particular requirements or age. This is left up to good common sense, and what is appropriate from one culture to the other.
We have even had conversations with U.S. Americans about the appropriate age for people to be together, and they were all over the map.
However, what we did find interesting is that, among progressive /liberal types in the United States, all types of couple arrangements are acceptable, such as LGBT, people who are swingers, or share their partners, etc.
Yet, they really do frown upon age disparity. Whereas in Asia we have seen and witnessed very often 10 and 15 year age gaps between couples.
Al Pacino (81 years of age) started dating Noor Alfallah (28) when they started dating back in 2022.
Elvis Presley was 24 when he started dating Priscilla Presley, who was then 14. The People of the United States loved Elvis and his music and people at the time were not outrated over the apparent age gap.
Final Thoughts. People have taken this whole age of Aisha (ra) and made a mountain out of a molehill. This is likely due to conditioning and social surroundings. It is interesting that this is not a Jewish objection or a Hindu objection. In other words, it is interesting to know which cultures have objections to which things and why. We would encourage you to read the comments on this article and the exchange we have had with others. As mentioned, the number of Muslim men we have personally encountered that are married to a female under the age of 21, let alone 16 or 12 is 0. When something like that does happen, it becomes international news as if an airplane went down in some remote part of the world. Islam gives some parameters on the basis for a male or female to be eligible for marriage. It does not give any artificial boundaries.
We have personally asked: “Your daughter is 18 and a man who is 45 has an interest in marrying her. Do you let it transpire?” His response was a resounding no, and that tells you all you need to know about the artificiality of such positions to begin with.
As regards the hadith on the matter, they are ahad dhani, lone narrator reports, which means it is speculative in nature.
The hadith could be true and Aisha (ra) could have simply guessed her age. Some people in our team have met Indonesians who are not certain of their age due to not having birth certificates. One could claim they are 17, yet in reality be 14. One could assume they are 11 and in reality be 13.
This article claims up to 25% of children in Indonesia do not own birth certificates. This also complicates matters for those Indonesian women wanting to work as domestic helpers over seas. Agencies require certain age requirements and this often becomes difficult to ascertain with 100% accuracy.
The Jews and Christians each say, “Follow our faith to be guided.” Say, “No! We follow the faith of Abraham, the upright—who was not a polytheist.” (Qur’an 2:135)
“Therefore be patient; surely the promise of Allah is true and let not those who have no certainty hold you in light estimation. (Qur’an 30:60)
﷽
Perhaps the point at which most Christians feel a sense of superiority over other faith traditions is that many of them have a sense of certainty in regard to their afterlife.
Also, to be fair to them, often it does not come from a sense of superiority but a sense of joy and relief that their sins are covered and paid for and that by accepting what they believe Christ Jesus did for them, they are safe from eternal damnation. Awaiting they are in the glorious kingdom of heaven.
Are you certain about what will happen to you in your afterlife? This is what they very often ask people of other faith traditions. The question is asked if the questioner themselves is certain.
There are several texts that a Christian can point to that give them this assurance. Now this is very important to keep in mind. This is not something intrinsic that a Christian knows; rather, it is the text that confirms their salvation!
So let us take a look at some of these texts.
“I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father ‘s hand.” (John 10:28-29)
“I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1 John 5:13)
“For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” (John 6:40)
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)
“And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:31)
Anyone who has a cursory understanding of Christianity and its many competing sects and denominations will be able to spot the flaws with the above text immediately.
That is to say, all Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God. Yet Christians themselves tell us that there are caveats to what seems to be a clear text. “That whoever believes in him.” Whoever is whoever right? Wrong!
The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, The United Pentecostal Church. The Holy Roman Church. The Greek Orthodox Church, The Jehovah’s Witness, The Southern Baptist. Reformed Baptist, The Trinitarian Pentecostal Church, Anglican/Episcopalian, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian and on and on it goes.
Many of these denominations and sects of Christianity quite often declare the others infidels or outside the body of Christ. Thus, this point alone underscores that the efficacy of “whoever believes in him” in and of itself is insufficient! There must be something more!
Let us also go back and look at this text:
“I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” (John 10:28-29)
The problem with the above text is that they and them are not defined. Do you not think that every one of those sects and denominations think that they themselves are the ones in the hand of the Father?
Not only that, but each one of those sects above has had apostates and reprobates. Some of them left one denomination for the other. . Some have left said denomination for a faith tradition outside of Christianity altogether. Some have left a belief in God altogether.
So the text quoted by Christians in isolation proves absolutely nothing. If that was the case, Muslims would be saved according to the New Testament.
“Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.” (John 5:24)
“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (John 17:3)
Muslims believe these things. So would that mean we are saved? The Christian would say no as they would go to a) either understanding of these passages in context and/or point to other passages that we do not believe in.
So coming back to the Christians.
“Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 9)
“Continue in a certain set of teaching” — This means the Christian just cannot have a simple head knowledge about supposed salvation. They must also have correct doctrines.
There are even massive disputes among them about whether one is to be immersed in water for a baptism to be acceptable. Is it enough to sprinkle water to be Christened? At what age should one be baptized? Is infant baptism correct or not? Pedobaptism vs Credobaptism. What is the formula to baptize in? Does one even need to be baptized at all?
“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)
“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)
Some reconcile the above by stating that ‘the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit’=Jesus Christ.
“And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43)
These men were not baptized and apparently Jesus assured them of salvation.
What about people who want to convert to Christianity in the desert and there is no water? What about those who believe in water immersion, and they are in a prison where no such service is provided?
Outward signs that would tell us who a true believer of Christ Jesus is?
Are there any outward acts or signs that are not subjective that one could recognize a true believer by?
“And these signs shall follow them that believe. In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” (Matthew 16:17-18)
The problems with this understanding are manifold.
There is the Pentecostal or Charismatic movement. Among them are Oneness Pentecostals and among them are Trinitarian Pentecostals.
Each side focuses on Tongues as the initial evidence of being saved or “Filled with the Holy Ghost” after baptism.
Oneness Pentecostals reject the trinity view of Godhead and follow closely to what is called by their opponents as Modalism or Sabellianism. That is to say that sometimes God is the Father, sometimes the Son, sometimes the Holy ghost, but never all 3 simultaneously or at the same time.
Oneness Pentecostals believe in baptizing in the name of Jesus ONLY and must be baptized by a Oneness Pentecostal ordained pastor.
Regular Pentecostal people believe in the Trinity : 1 God, 3 persons living together, separately and simultaneously. They baptize” In the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost.
How is it that both sides speak in tongues if only 1 way is correct? (If the Oneness Formula is the correct one, why do trinitarian Pentecostals also speak in tongues?)
Each side will quote proof text against the other!
Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way. (1 Corinthians 12:29-31)
And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve. (1 Corinthians 11:15-16)
In the above text we as Muslims would say that there are those who are apparently righteous (dhahir) and their righteousness is not haqiqah (real or true).
Here are some more texts that Pentecostals and Charismatics and those also known as Holy Rollers would use against each other.
“For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Matthew 24:24)
The above text is compounded by the problem that no Christian really knows if any of them are of the elect or not! They only presuppose this by thinking their interpretation of scripture, understanding of scripture or outward manifestation (prophecies, driving out demons and performing miracles) makes them of the elect.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (Matthew 7:21-23)
The above text has to relate to Christians! Or at the very least, those who in all earnest believe themselves to be Christians. There are no Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Taoists, Shinto, Jews or Muslims that go around and do such things.
On a personal note, one of our team members has personally known people who were Charismatic Pentecostals that spoke in tongues, and were, for the most part, trying their utmost to be godly people.
Yet, they beat their spouses, remarried after divorce, and the big one—fornication, fornication, fornication! How is one who is filled with the Holy Spirit drawn to sin?
What about the gifts of the Holy Spirit?
“The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.” (Galatians 5:22-23)
This is also subjective. As you will find Christians and even non-Christians who exhibit all these traits and qualities.
The most hated verses of the entire New Testament to Christians. Separating the wheat from the chafe.
Now, we are going to quote to you some text of the New Testament that deeply troubles Christians. By Christians we mean all of them. Every shade, stripe, sect or denomination.
That is because this text is the real dividing line. This text does not mince words. This text gets as close as one can get to knowing if they have the spirit of God within them.
Now, let us think about this. Let us, for the sake of argument, agree with all the various Christian understandings of who or what the Holy Spirit is.
The Holy Spirit is God himself, as the third person of the Trinity.
The Holy Spirit is God’s active force (Jehovah’s Witness)
The Holy Spirit is God (as Jesus), as Oneness Pentecostals believe.
Let’s just take all that on board.
“For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Jude 1: 4-5)
Now ponder that. A Christian can now walk in righteousness and live a holy life (not by their own account so that they may boast). The reason that they can walk in righteousness and live a holy life is so that they are born of God! They have the Holy Spirit (God himself, Jesus himself, or God’s active force) indwelling in them!
Example:
“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.” (Matthew 6:24)
That is the benchmark! Now let us come to that nightmare text we were talking about.
“Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 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. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister. (1 John 3:7-10)
POWERFUL!!!
As Muslims reading this we only have to say Allahu Akbar! Because there are among Muslims those who think that they can continue to engage in sins and even major sins and die without repenting to Allah, and they will be among the people of paradise!
So read those words, dear Christian! When you molest your child, defraud your frock, embellish funds from the Church, look upon a woman (or man) with lust, marry again after being divorced, are a racist, cheat people, lie, are gluttonous, are greedy, lazy, envious, prideful, hypocrite, vain, unforgiving, seeking obscenities, slander, involved in sedition, bribery, embezzle funds, evade taxes, palm reading, psychic networks, astrologers, and those who believe in astrology, watcher of pornography, adulterer, fornicator, gambler, neglect prayer, or are bitter you are involved in sin and the Holy Spirit does not dwell with in you PERIOD!
“But as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, “Be holy, for I am holy.” (1 Peter 1:15-16)
All those above sins mentioned if any Christian commits a single one of them, they cannot be considered holy.
In fact, Paul wrote to Christian Churches with the following strong warning.
“The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:19-21)
The above letter is written to a Church filled with Christians!
“If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.” (Hebrews 10:26-27)
Oh, Christians! Know that your theology is built upon a mountain of sand!
You are only righteous in accordance with your ego! Fear God! Fear the fire Christians! Flee to God! Turn in repentance! Accept the truth!
Not to be haughty (May Allah protect us), but this also applies to us as Muslims.
“So that you neither grieve over what you have missed nor boast over what He has granted you. For Allah does not like whoever is arrogant, boastful.”(Qur’an 57:23)
We have said it before, and we will say it again. Genesis chapter 3 is the only thing that stands between Christianity and Islam.
Let us examine the concept of salvation and the assurances of it in light of a debate between two Protestant Christians and in light of a debate between a Christian and a Muslim.
The Predestination Debate: James White vs Michael Brown
@ 10:40 “When some determinately refuses him, then God will righteously judge that person and even give them over to unbelief and delusion. And even in that sense, harden them in their sin by giving them over to it.”—Michael Brown
Prima Qur’an comments:
If you look at what Michael is saying. it can be supported by (1 John 3:7-10)
That is, those people who claim they have the Holy Spirit and commit any type of sin at all. Those people can be described by Michael Brown as those who are given over to unbelief and delusion.
“And for this cause, God shall send them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” (2 Thessalonians 2:11)
The Christian believes in a type of God that will send delusion upon people to cause them to believe in lies.
One has to wonder, given that most Christian denominations and sects do believe that Jesus is the son of God, and their redeemer and means to salvation, what did those other Christian sects and denominations (deemed to be heretical and hell-bound) do or not do to put in a state of delusion to the point of believing in lies?
@55:20 “The universe that Dr. White holds to and please correct me if I’m wrong on understanding what you believe or overstating it or misstating it. Instead of God grieving over the rape and torture, slow torture death of a little child whose than buried alive and no one ever going to know about it until the judgement seat of Christ. Instead of God grieving over it and saying I never intended for that. That is absolutely contrary to my will, Dr. White said God ordained it. When he created the universe, he ordained in his decree that someone would do that, and he takes glory in that one way or another.” -Michael Brown
@1:02:15 “Ah my brother, you’re so close to the kingdom.” -James White
James White is making this statement towards Michael Brown. Then James was interrupted by God, who decreed that there be some sound distortion the moment after he said it.
James unveils the dark truth of Calvinist interpretations of the Bible. In fact, this view was refuted by the Ibadi long ago. Calvinism in Christianity is Jabriyya among Muslims.
It is a view that turns the Creator into an unjust, capacious deity that does a sort of Eeny, meeny, miny, moe with his creations.
@1:05:07 “When he said in his opening statement if he calls us to repent, he enables us to repent. He calls everyone to repent. Acts chapter 17. God commands man everywhere to repent. The times of this ignorance God overlooked, but now He commands all men everywhere to repent.” (Acts 17:30)Does that mean he enables? What does enablement mean? What’s the nature of this enabling? Is it a partial regeneration? Romans chapter 8 says those according to the Spirit cannot do what is pleasing before God. “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. If so, be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” (Romans 8:7-9) Is repentance pleasing towards God? You better believe it is. So you cannot be according to the flesh and do what is pleasing to God. Regeneration has to come first. So is everyone regenerated? Of course not! So if he commands man everywhere to repent. Then he must regenerate everyone to fulfill the statement. ‘If he calls us to repent, he enables us to repent.’ That’s some kind of general prevenient grace, I guess, but that concept simply isn’t Biblical, and it simply does not work.” -James White
Prima Qur’an comments.
What does it say about the justice of God: “but now He commands all men everywhere to repent,” but then He does not enable all men to do so?
“So is everyone regenerated? Of course not! So if he commands man everywhere to repent. Then he must regenerate everyone to fulfill the statement.”
The bizarre ‘logic’, if we want to call it, is as follows.
God has predetermined before the foundation of the world that he will send his Holy Spirit to regenerate human beings so that they may recognize that Christ is the Lord.
“Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:3)
2. Only those who are regenerated by the Holy Spirit can call Jesus Lord.
3. Because God calls all men to repent but does not enable them to do means that God does indeed want some people to burn in eternal hellfire without even giving them the equal “opportunity” he gives others. We use “opportunity” because none of the Calvinists can tell us on what basis God chooses one over the other. The reason why we used the word “opportunity” in brackets is because a well-known theologian and scholar of their tradition himself quoted a senior teacher as calling this act: “holy rape of the soul!”
In this view of God, it truly is unconditional love because there are no conditions placed upon man and nothing reciprocal either. Rape is a form of unconditional love because it is not based upon mutual consent.
So there are two very massive differences when it comes to the concept of divine love and divine justice in this understanding of Christianity and the true understanding of Islam.
Allah does not force us to love him. Allah has enabled humanity to love him.
We human beings have the ability (given to us by God, each one of us with the mental capacity and faculty) to love God. We can reach out to God. In fact, we bet there is someone reading this article right now because you have something beautiful inside of you. That is right! We said it, something beautiful and amazing and something that needs to be harnessed, trained, and nurtured so it becomes even more beautiful. Right now, out of the thousands of websites you could be looking at, the million and one things you could be doing, you are here.
Why? Because you have a longing for God!
In Islam, you have the ability to reach out to God, and God will reach out to you.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (saw) said, “Allah says: ‘I am just as My slave thinks I am, (i.e. I am able to do for him what he thinks I can do for him) and I am with him if He remembers Me. If he remembers Me in himself, I too, remember him in Myself; and if he remembers Me in a group of people, I remember him in a group that is better than they; and if he comes one span nearer to Me, I go one cubit nearer to him; and if he comes one cubit nearer to Me, I go a distance of two outstretched arms nearer to him; and if he comes to Me walking, I go to him running.’ “
In Christianity, you are on the road to hell unless the capricious deity of Calvin randomly chooses to love you, and then he will make you love him!
Huge difference!
“Say (O Muhammed): “If you do love Allah, follow me: Allah will love you and forgive you your sins: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 3:31)
In Islam, humanity has love instilled in them! In Islam, Love is a dynamic relationship between Allah and humanity. We have love instilled in us, we are not born without love. We human beings develop very deep bonds with our siblings and our children and parents.
“But ask forgiveness of your Lord, and turn unto Him (in repentance): For my Lord is indeed full of mercy and loving-tender kindness.” (Qur’an 11:90)
When confronted with the cruel Calvinist deity, we are dealing with a sadomasochistic entity that is capricious and whimsical when dealing with his creation.
The only critique (and a shallow one at that) the Calvinist can hurl at Islam is the following:
“Allah has enabled humanity to have a synergist relationship with him. In such a system, Muslims can boast of their good deeds!
That is right! Allah has created human beings with the innate power and ability to resist evil and to submit to Allah.
It is true that there are Muslims who boast of their good deeds, their achievements, their awards, their spouses, their children, but this is also true of Christians as well.
The question is, does Allah encourage us to be boastful?
“And the servants of the Merciful are those who walk on the earth in humility….” (Qur’an 25:63)
“Allah does not love the arrogant and the boastful.” (Qur’an 4:36)
For Allah does not like whoever is arrogant, boastful.” (Qur’an 57:23)
2. The second major point of difference between Islam and Christianity.
Do Christians even believe in a God who is fair and just?
“This is what your hands sent ahead, and God is never unjust to the servants.” (Qur’an 22:10)
“Whoever does good, it is for his own soul, and whoever does evil, it is against it; and your Lord is not in the least unjust to the servants.” (Qur’an 41:46)
However, in Christianity we are all God’s enemies! Every human baby born is an enemy of God! What a twisted doctrine! It is only when God forces you (reprograms you from an enemy to a friend) that you become this automaton that loves him.
If any Christian (Assembly of God, Church of Christ, Methodist) comes up to a Calvinist Christian basking and glowing and talking about how they love Jesus Christ and are filled with the love of Jesus, the Calvinist will give them a very cold look and a very stern stare. “Who are these pathetic human beings who think that they are capable of love?”
The Calvinist shivers and withers at the thought of it!
“For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!” (Romans 5:10)
Basically, you’re an enemy of God, and you’re on a collision course with death (if you think we are overexaggerating this example, all you have to do is click on the following link:
“Now, Mark Driscoll had a good point on this argument. He likened irresistible grace to a time his daughter was running towards the road about to get hit by a truck. He snatched her out of the way. He did not respect her will. That’s a better analogy.”
Basically, right now you have free will. Your will in this worldview is to always choose evil and rebellion. That’s right! No matter how many times you donate to charity, or you have given your blood or kidney to save someone. No matter how many times you are disgusted with the violence and agony and suffering of the world, you are just rotten to the very core! You’re fundamentally evil in nature! If you don’t like it that’s just tough! The reason you don’t like it is because of your rebellion against a sovereign God!
So what does this sovereign, cruel, capricious deity of Calvinism do? He “does not respect your will,” as the Christian above so eloquently puts it.
God forces you to love him, he changes you, generates you, smashes your will, spiritually rapes you, reconciles you.
However, in Christianity (Calvin’s version), God is very unjust and unfair. God does not give everyone an equal chance. Oh, no!
The favorite proof text of the Calvinist?
So here is the crux upon which their devious and vile doctrine rests, Romans 9:10-21 You would do well to know this text when dealing with Calvinists!
“Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ”Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?”(Romans 9:10-21)
Notice something about the above text highlighted in red. God had a purpose for the children before they had done anything good or bad, the text says.
Notice that the author of the text also recognizes that there are arguments against the position. Why does God blame us for people who resist his will?
Basically, it comes down to a problem of JUSTICE!!! Where is God’s justice when God, in his “positive will”, actively regenerates some and in his “negative will” he passes over the non-elect?
Christians go on and on about where the justice of God lives in Islam! That’s rich! That is very rich coming from people who believe in doctrines like this!
Where is the justice of God in not giving everyone the same chance and ability to be saved?
Only a person who has a very dark heart, or holds the divine in low esteem could even fathom that such a doctrine is even remotely a modicum of God’s justice!
So what do the Calvinists do?
What do the Reformed Baptists do when they are confronted by this monstrosity of a doctrine?
Write books, of course! Coin phrases and theological terminology. That they feel will help “explain” (read: dress up) the utter ugliness and darkness that this doctrine really is.
In fact, if truth be told in this system, Jesus’ blood is absolutely meaningless. It is a veiled gnostic attack upon the very heart of Christian teachings of atonement.
It is not the blood of Jesus who saves, it is the Holy Spirit that regenerates. The blood of Jesus was not for anyone except for God. It was his own stage show, his own circus act for himself! To satisfy his own wrath, he was already determined to save!
Talk about beyond weird and sadomasochistic does not even come close to the type of perversity that this doctrine is.
Subhan’Allah! Praise be to Allah who has given humanity Islam! Praise be to Allah, who, by the tongues of Christ Jesus the son of Mary, Moses, Aaron, David, Abraham and Muhammed have come to teach us that this is not the way!
“R.C. Sproul, in his book Chosen by God pg. 142-43 gives tells us what Equal Ultimacy is and how it does not fit into the Reformed view of Double Predestination:”
“There are different views of double predestination. One of these is so frightening that many shun the term altogether, lest their view of the doctrine be confused with the scary one. This is called the equal ultimacy view. Equal ultimacy is based on a concept of symmetry. It seeks a complete balance between election and reprobation. The key idea is this: Just as God intervenes in the lives of the elect to create faith in their hearts, so God equally intervenes in the lives of the reprobate to create or work unbelief in their hearts. The idea of God’s actively working unbelief in the hearts of the reprobate is drawn from biblical statements about God hardening people’s hearts. Equal ultimacy is not the Reformed or Calvinist view of predestination. Some have called it ‘hyper-Calvinism.’ I prefer to call it ‘sub-Calvinism’ or, better yet, ‘anti-Calvinism.’ Though Calvinism certainly has a view of double predestination, the double predestination it embraces is not one of equal ultimacy. To understand the Reformed view of the matter, we must pay close attention to the crucial distinction between positive and negative decrees of God. Positive has to do with God’s active intervention in the hearts of the elect. Negative has to do with God’s passing over the non-elect. The Reformed view teaches that God positively or actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to insure their salvation. The rest of mankind God leaves to themselves. He does not create unbelief in their hearts. That unbelief is already there. He does not coerce them to sin. They sin by their own choices. In the Calvinist view, the decree of election is positive; the decree of reprobation is negative. Hyper-Calvinism’s view of double predestination may be called positive-positive predestination. Orthodox Calvinism’s view may be called positive-negative predestination.
Prima Qur’an comments:
Now R.C Sproul is supposed to be a person who understands theology.
So God has decreed that he will act to save some. God has also decreed that he will not act to save the rest. Notice that R.C Sproul says, “The idea of God’s actively working unbelief in the hearts of the reprobate is drawn from biblical statements about God hardening people’s hearts.”
Well, would you imagine that! The whole idea of God actively working unbelief in the hearts of the reprobate is drawn from biblical statements! Who would have guessed! However, what R.C Sproul also conveniently leaves out is the fact that Calvinists believe that God creates all souls! If all souls, by their very nature, sin, then God creates souls that sin. The amount of sin that they do and all that will germinate from it is from God! In fact, rather than saying that God is actively working to create unbelief in people’s hearts, the truth of the matter is that, in Christian theology, God has created human beings who, from the outset, from the very beginning of their creation are unbelievers!
It is only by his capricious, tyrannical whim that he smashes their will and makes them friends rather than keeping them as enemies whom he created to be enemies.
Some Calvinist Christians will read this and scoff and say! Rubbish! Nonsense! Blasphemy!
And we simply raise an eyebrow at them, put our hands over our mouths, give a slight cough and say….”Ever heard of the doctrine of original sin?”
Anyone?
So what kind of nature is man born with? What kind of nature did we inherit from Adam? What kind of flesh, by default mode is supposedly a loving God going to send a soul into?
A soul that, by default mode is on a trajectory to hell!
Remember the above text in Romans 9 says, Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
There you have it!
Or let us use the more flowery language of the New Living Translation.
So we know that it is his will that one will be made for decoration and one for garbage!
Notice that R.C Sproul says the following:
“Though Calvinism certainly has a view of double predestination….”
So what part of pre-destination needs to be explained here? If it is double predestination and God has a positive decree and a negative decree, then there you have it!
There is no justice in such a doctrine! None! It makes God out to be a tyrannical overlord who only makes people love him. Love does not come from human beings. The human being does not respond to God. The human being is made into an automaton.
Those who are unfortunate enough to become automatons are destined to an eternal life in hellfire for ever-lasting Glory to God the Father! Amen!
All this from a creator who willfully places human souls into a machine that is on a trajectory for hell!
In Calvinism, God is not just. God is the Most Unjust. God’s justice is arbitrary. Contrary to those theologians today who know you will be troubled by this idea, why don’t they do what the Apostle Paul did?
It is not sufficient for R.C Sproul, John Piper and others to allow God’s Holy Spirit to speak when he supposedly inspired Paul to respond by saying, “But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”
Instead, they prefer to write whole books that try and explain away what obviously was not very clear to the masses!
“For God so loved the world…” Wrong! As one Christian speaker who is on the opposite side of this doctrine noted:
“Modern Calvinist circles seem to be filled with guys who insist that Christ’s death had no benefit whatsoever for anyone other than the elect and God’s only desire with regard to the reprobate is to damn them period. Too many Calvinists embrace the doctrine of limited atonement. They finally see the truth of it, but then they think, “Oh, that’s that.” Christ died for the elect and, in no sense are there any universal benefits in the atonement, so the atonement is limited to the elect in every sense, and it has no relevance whatsoever to the non-elect.” -Leighton Flowers
This is the real dilemma for Christians. A capricious deity that randomly chooses without reason or rhyme (only known to himself) who will be the object of his salvation and who will be the object of his wrath).
Or the admission by the Christian that humanity in some capacity can call out to God. That God gives people choice. A type of synergism. That there are people who are awed by Creation and thus the Creator and seek the face of God.
Either way, Islam comes in as a crushing wave that overwhelms them both!
When we peel back the thin veneer of assurance, what we find are spacious doctrines and a people who often lead vacuous lives.
Let us continue on with the debate: The Predestination Debate – James White vs Michael Brown
@1:14:45 Listen to the cross-examination between James White and Michael Brown.
@1:14:49 “Alright and because we are respectful gentleman I will not give a 4 minute, 59 second question. Nor will he give a 4 minute, 59 second answer. So let’s just start out a practical level in terms of election, predestination, Um. I’m 100% sure that I am a child of God, my sins are forgiven. If I was to die right now I’d be in his presence. I assume you feel the same. Therefore, since you know that you are an elected predestined. Can you say that you know that it is absolutely(im) possible for you to ever fall away?” -Michael Brown.
“Well, you’re confusing I think creaturely categories of knowledge and divine categories of knowledge. I would take infallibility and infallible knowledge as a divine category. So, in the sense that the Holy Spirit testifies to me of my sonship as certain as a person can be at that point, given our uh human limitation Yes. But I differentiate between any kind of making my certainty the same kind of level of certainty that we have in scripture.” -James White
Michael Brown: So than I have as a non Calvinist the greater assurance than you do.” James White: “I don’t believe so.” Michael Brown: “Ah, But it says we can know. John says I write these things so that you can know. So you know you have eternal life?”
James White: “Well again.” Michael Brown: “But you could be deceived possibly.”
“Remember what 1 John chapter 5 says Well I (catches himself) The fact is Mike you and I are both old enough now to know many people who used to stand with us in the church, and who made those statements to us…. “-James White
Michael Brown: “And they fell away.“
James White: “And we believed them.”
James White: “And they fell away.”
Michael Brown: “Yes”
James White: “And so the question…(cut off)
Michael Brown: “My theology allows for that.”
James White: “So does mine. They went out from us so that it might be shown they were not truly of us.”-
Michael Brown: “Some that’s the case.”
James White: “Exactly.”
“Those are the ones that are being described. “And That’s why there’s warning after warning. Don’t harden your heart.”-Michael Brown. “Exactly.”-James White. “And we are partakers if we continue to the end.”-Michael Brown
“So we agree on perseverance.” -Michael Brown
“Exactly.”-James White.
“So your saying your sure but not God 100% sure?“-Michael Brown.
“I’m not divine! So I have to recognizes that that that as far as the Holy Spirit testifies to my heart yes! And that in 1 John 5 by the way says that you may know. What. I’ve wrote these things to you. What were those things? That you love the brethren, that you walk in light etc. etc.” -James White
“Right right So we have the fruit of it. So we have the fruit of it. Therefore the warnings the warnings are real to you?” -Michael Brown.
“Yes they are.”-James White.
“Ok, fine fine that’s important alright.”-Michael Brown
Prima Qur’an comments.
First, we found interesting Michael Brown’s not so subtle dig at James White’s debate tactics.
Brown stated:
“Alright and because we are respectful gentleman I will not give a 4 minute, 59 second question. Nor will he give a 4 minute, 59 second answer“-Michel Brown.
What Brown is speaking about is, during what is called ‘cross -fire’, James can often milk the clock of his opponent by giving a lengthy response that takes time away from the questioner to press him.
“I would take infallibility and infallible knowledge as a divine category. So in the sense that the Holy Spirit testifies to me of my sonship as certain as a person can be at that point given our uh human limitation Yes. But I differentiate between any kind of making my certainty the same kind of level of certainty that we have in scripture.”-James White.
Prima Qur’an comments:
Doesn’t a Christian deserve 100% certainty over ‘as certain as a person can be’ ? Does that very response completely blow the lid off the idea of assurance of salvation? You have to wonder why wouldn’t God give that infallible knowledge to a Christian?
Recall what we stated at the entry of this blog post.
There are several textd that a Christian can point to that give them this assurance. Now this is very important to keep in mind. This is not something intrinsic that a Christian knows; rather, it is the text that confirms their salvation!
“The fact is Mike you and I are both old enough now to know many people who used to stand with us in the church, and who made those statements to us.” -James White
Prima Qur’an comments: What James says is quite true. There are indeed those who call themselves Christians. Perhaps even those who are calling Muslims to Christianity right now who actually may not even be real Christians (according to James & Michael). They could be out there in Hyde Park, online and in other places saying and confessing the exact same things that James White and Michael Brown say and confess. Then behold! One day, those same people have left a particular Christian denomination for one deemed to be heretical. Or that person left Christianity for a non-Christian tradition. Or that Christian renounced faith altogether!
“So your saying your sure but not God 100% sure?“-Michael Brown.
“I’m not divine! So I have to recognizes that that that as far as the Holy Spirit testifies to my heart yes! And that in 1 John 5 by the way says that you may know. What. I’ve wrote these things to you. What were those things? That you love the brethren, that you walk in light etc. etc.” -James White
“Right right So we have the fruit of it. So we have the fruit of it. Therefore the warnings the warnings are real to you?:-Michael Brown.
Prima Qur’an comments:
So Brown presses James about whether he can be 100% certain that he is saved, or elected and will never fall away from faith. It is odd that Christians who claim to be regenerated from the Holy Spirit (presumably God the third person) cannot give a more convincing response.
James again quotes scripture (which hundreds of other denominations that he feels are heretical also quote).
James then appeals to ‘fruits of the spirit’ which, as mentioned above, are also found in hundreds of other denominations that both James and Michael would feel are heretical. Those same fruits are also found in non-Christian people.
So there is really nothing apparent that would set James and his sect apart from any other type of Christian denomination that would rely upon the same evidence.
@1:19:25 There is an exchange between James and Michael about whether a Christian should praise God over a child of theirs that would be damned to hell. Michael got the better of this exchange, of which James tacitly agreed. That is because, as Michael noted, if everything is predestined by God, and God is good, then nothing he does is other than good and is praiseworthy. Including allowing a believing Christian’s son or daughter to burn in hell for all eternity.
Prima Qur’an comments:
This may be seen as underhanded by Michael Brown, especially if he is aware of the friction between James White (pictured right) and his estranged sister Patricia Bonds. Patricia had converted to the Roman Catholic Church. She also writes about the claim that her father molested her. Source: (https://catholicconvert.com/patty-bonds-her-father-her-mother-and-her-brother-james-white/)
So what Michael is pressing James on here is that if God decrees all things and predetermines them, and God is good, and we must rejoice in all things God does…. then well…..you, the reader, follow the logic.
@1:50:51 There was a very good question from the audience.
“If the atonement is particular rather than conditional, is it the case that the elect have their penalty paid for them before they were born? If so, in virtue of what are they ever under the wrath?“
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.” (John 3:36)
You can listen to James response.
@1:51:07 “Yeah, that’s a very good question. But uh, its uh Biblically answered uhh we experience what God has provided for us in eternity in time. We are time-bound creatures. And so, yes uh in our union with Christ we die with him. That’s the great confession of all every believer. I’ve been crucified with Christ nevertheless I live. Well, when was I crucified with Christ? At the time of my conversion? Or was I not united with him in his death? Uh, the idea that we somehow unite ourselves to him. I think is doesn’t’ make much sense. But we experience all this in time. So, while God has decreed, according to Ephesians chapter 1, that salvation that is ours there is a point in time, early in life for those who are really blessed, maybe later in life uh for others for God’s purposes that they may go through those things so that they can be ministers unto others. But at God’s intent, intended time the Spirit of God brings spiritual life we are uh given the gifts of faith and repentance and we than experience that which God intended from eternity past and procured for us Not just in the sacrifice of Christ but even in all his redemptive works that he did with the people of Israel before that, which brings about the sacrifice of Christ. So, uh it is it’s a category error to say that If we are all united with Christ in his death, therefore that means that we’ve never been children of wrath, or that we umm until or generation or somehow uhh free from uhh the penalty of sin or any of those types of things. That is ignoring the fact that God can be eternal and we are in time and therefore he decrees when in time we are going to experience that which he has decreed for us.” -James White.
Prima Qur’an comments:
We have watched enough of James White to know that when he isn’t certain how to respond, he in respond with one of two ways or a combo. 1) Fill the response with incoherent ramblings. 2) State the person is making a ‘category error’ or a combination of both.
We found his response wanting. If God had already pre-ordained before the beginning of time whom he would regenerate, in what real sense would such individuals ever be under the wrath of God?
We believe the questioner also wanted to take aim at the “ordo salutis” position of what is known as primitive Baptist or “hard-shell” Baptist. Namely, the idea that one could be in Christ as an unrepentant individual. In other words, an unbeliever united with Christ. That regeneration preceded repentance.
NNow there are textsthat could assist the idea of one being regenerated by the Holy Spirit and not having faith. But then to call this person an unbeliever (as they have not professed anything) would be a stretch.
“For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb.” (Luke 1:15)
In what real sense can the wrath of God be upon John? The following text cannot be true in any real sense unless the Christian states that this is the case in general.
“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)
“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)
John was born of God, so in what sense is a sinner and/or in what sense is the wrath of God upon him?
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I sanctified you; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. Alas, Sovereign Lord,” I said, “I do not know how to speak; I am too young.” But the Lord said to me, “Do not say, ‘I am too young.’ You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you,” declares the Lord. Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “I have put my words in your mouth.” (Jeremiah 1:5-9)
God says he sanctified Jeremiah even in his mothers womb. Is someone going to come along and say that Jeremiah is the object of God’s wrath? Or that Jeremiah sinned?
As regards using the idea that either Jeremiah or John the Baptist were regenerated without the ability to declare faith from the point of view of a Muslim is an argument from silence.
Thus, Jeremiah, John the Baptist could have all had prescience at birth.
Evanescent Grace -Christian James White debates Muslim Abdullah Kunde.
Title of the debate: The Assurance of Salvation In Islam And Christianity
When we knew that Abdullah Kunde was going to debate James White and knowing that Pastor White is a Calvinist we pointed out to Abdullah the position of Evanescent Grace.
What was shocking to usis that James White was ignorant of the terminology. We do not know if the showcasing of his ignorance also contributes to the fact that his website does not link to the debate. Or it maybe that those who hosted the debate did not feel James did so well.
Allah knows best.
WHAT IS EVANESCENT GRACE?
Evanescent-something that gradually vanishes.
1. I am aware it seems unaccountable to some how faith is attributed to the reprobate, seeing that it is declared by Paul to be one of the fruits of election; and yet the difficulty is easily solved: for though none are enlightened into faith, and truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, with the exception of those who are fore-ordained to salvation, yet experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. Should it be objected, that believers have no stronger testimony to assure them of their adoption, I answer, that though there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith, yet the elect alone have that full assurance which is extolled by Paul, and by which they are enabled to cry, Abba, Father. Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only for ever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate. Meanwhile, believers are taught to examine themselves carefully and humbly, lest carnal security creep in and take the place of assurance of faith. We may add, that the reprobate never have any other than a confused sense of grace, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only, applying it by special faith to their use. Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy. In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.
This is extremely unnerving and terrifying. How do Christians ‘know’ for sure that they are saved and are not just under some false sense of security that God has put into them as mentioned by John Calvin? Why would God do that any way?
Would people who have sincerely repented, turned to God and searched for truth and endured hardships their whole life be given a false sense of security by God?
In fact, Abdullah Kunde brought up this excellent point about Simon the Magi you can see in the video below (quality not so great).
“Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, “This man is rightly called the Great Power of God.” They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery. But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw. When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”Then Simon answered, “Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me.” After they had further proclaimed the word of the Lord and testified about Jesus, Peter and John returned to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel in many Samaritan villages. (Acts 8:9-25)
Now this above text is all kinds of interesting. We know that Simon was one of the elect of God because no one can believe unless, they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. This is not a case of simple head knowledge or knowledge of the apparent. We know this because the one instructing Luke to write Acts is none other than the Holy Spirit, according to Christians! Surely the Holy Spirit would know if Simon believed or was not correct? So Simon was one of the elect. He believed and was baptized.
However, this text is full of problems such as:
“because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” Yet, the previous text says: “But when they believed Philip” & “they were baptized, both men and women.”
Peter, who is one of the elect, according to Christians says to his fellow elected Christian: “Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you .”
The very fact that the Elect Peter, who is disturbing the Holy Spirit like there is no tomorrow, says to the fellow Elect Simon, “That he may forgive you” is proof clear as day that the possibility was there for Simon to lose his election.
The Elect Peter also says to the Elect Simon: “For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”
That was the end that we heard of Simon.
They couldn’t have believed unless the Holy Spirit had already came to them.
@2:27 Abdullah Kunde brought up evanescent grace.
@1:23 Abdullah points out that James has yet to interact with his question on evanescent faith.
@5:45 Again brother Abdullah Kunde presses James to answer his questions on evanescent faith.
@6:06 Brother Abdullah Kunde ask: “Does faith come before or after salvation”?
“Are mentally retarded individuals are they granted salvation because are they granted the ability to come to faith; or are they granted salvation at the very beginning and then faith after that?”
“What about children?” “Children that do not reach the age of reason if they die are they granted salvation?”
These are very excellent questions given by brother Abdullah Kunde.
@7:52 Again Abdullah ask about Evanescent faith to James White.
@10:07 “ok thank you very much, uh the reason I didn’t respond to uh what Abdullah said is I’m not sure what evanescent faith is. He just defined it as pretend faith. Uh I I’m sorry it’s not terminology I’ve ever heard of before. Uh there are certainly are people who have false Faith. There are people who have faith in a false Jesus, a false gospel.”-James White
@13:42 Abdullah Kunde is enlightening James White about the position of evanescent faith by quoting Calvin’s Institutes.
Prima Qur’an comments:
“I’m not sure what evanescent faith is. He just defined it as pretend faith. Uh I I’m sorry it’s not terminology I’ve ever heard of before. “-James White
We are very, very surprised that James White expressed ignorance over the terminology of what Brother Abdullah Kunde gave.
“@1:47 “Ah well very briefly I said I didn’t address uh mentally retarded individuals, children these are huge subjects. The scripture does not address these issues. It simply tells us that God will be just. and that the judge of all the Earth will do right.”-James White.
Yet Islam does address these points. Islam has very clear nass (text) that answer these questions.
“Allah does not burden a soul beyond that it can bear.” (Qur’an 2:286)
The above text is actually in regard to the sacred law.
It was narrated from ‘Ali bin Abu Talib that:
the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “The Pen is lifted from the minor, the insane person and the sleeper.”
So, when we dream, we may do certain acts in our dreams that would be impermissible in sacred law. We are not held accountable for it. Islam addresses this. Does Christianity?
The case of children.
Minor children, until they become mukhalif (responsible) exhibited signs such as distinction between right and wrong, abstract thinking etc. Until then, they have not been held accountable. Even if they are raised by non-Muslims. They die, they enter into the Mercy of Allah. Islam addresses this. Christianity is not cohesive on the issue.
This also circles around further disputes about what one must do/believe in order to obtain salvation. For example, the differences between credobaptism and pedobaptism. Credobaptis (those who say a person must confess a faith in Christ) vs Pedobaptist (not necessary to confess a faith in Christ). The Credobaptists have not demonstrated that the Bible teaches that professing believers, and no one else, are to be baptized. Personally, in this debate, the Pedobaptist (Orthodox, Catholic, Presbyterian, Anglican and others that practice baby baptism are more consistent with the doctrine of original sin. Babies die—they fell in Adam. Whereas the only consistent Protestants that can reject Pedobaptism are the Churches of Christ (not Mormons) — these Churches of Christ are also called ‘Campbelites’.
Here is the syllogism:Campbellites agree with Augustine that baptism literally washes away sin;Campbellites disagree with Augustine that baptism is for infants;Therefore, Campbellites conclude that infants are not affected by original sin, but are rather born innocent.
Thus, on who is baptized, they are the most biblically consistent Protestants.
The case of those not in full use of mental faculties (the insane, the mentally challenged).
Islam addresses this. Does Christianity?
The concept of eternal security, preservation or perseverance of saints has been unsettling for many Christians. This is because many of them witnessed people who believed as they believed, said as they said, witnessed as they witnessed, and bore fruit as they bore fruit and yet these very people left Christianity.
Calvin does distinguish between the graces experienced by the saved versus the evanescent grace experienced by the confused damned. The saved get the real thing, while the damned lay hold “of the shadow rather than the substance.” In other words, if the saved are drinking Coke, the damned are drinking Diet Coke. But since neither the saved nor the damned have ever had the other kind, and all the external characteristics are the same, there’s no way of knowing which you’re drinking.
One extremely distraught Christian wrote: “So here is where I’m hung up. There have been Christians who surpass myself by any measure or rubric that I could use for comparison. And yet some of these have since fallen away. Any comfort I have in regard to not falling away, these former(?) Christians would also have had. But since they have fallen away, the comfort they felt should not have been comforting. The assurance that they felt should not have been assuring.”
“I was wondering how the doctrine of assurance is assuring to Calvinists, knowing that others have seemingly fallen away. I’m not sure how else to word it.”
“My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.” (John 10:27-29)
Thus, the Christian tells us that the Shephard choose the sheep. The sheep do not choose the Shephard. Though this is not a good analogy because of the following text:
“He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)
Did the shepherd do a poor job as to lose the sheep or did the sheep simply not obey?
The problem, and in actuality, the very real and very sad irony of someone quoting the above text as some proof for a doctrine of the assurance of salvation, is as follows.
Of course, the Shephard knows the sheep, and the sheep recognizes the Shephard. However, the sheep cannot even affirm if they are the Shephard’s sheep to begin with. Therefore, they cannot know if the Shephard will keep them. It does not get more uncertain than this.
JESUS WAS ONLY SENT TO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.
Jesus when speaking about his people , those saved, those
“Know that the Lord, he is God! It is he who made us, and we are his ;we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.” (Psalm 100:3)
“He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)
“Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” (Luke 19:9-10)
“You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.” (John 4:22)
“My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.” (John 10:27-29)
“While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.” (John 17:12)
“Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (John 6:70)
Prima-Qur’an comments:
Everyone is in agreement that the terminology ‘them’, ‘they’ and ‘those’ are not a reference to the whole of humanity but to a specific group of people. They are numbered. What is the evidence to suggest that John 10: 27-29 is not simply a reference to the 12 disciples themselves?
Where is the evidence that when Jesus used the terminology ‘them’, ‘they’ are a reference to a Motley Crue of Christians from every tribe and people?
“They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” (1 John 2:19)
So often some Christians say about those who left Christianity, well, “they were never really Christian to begin with.” But the problem with that type of thinking is that no one can truly know if they are that type of Christian (i.e. true) until they die!
What has terrified the Christian is that they said the whole reason for a redeemer is that God demands 100% perfection. So let’s get this right. God calls all men to repent. However, this God has given the ability to some to repent and not others. But even those he has regenerated and given the ability to repent have to now also be 100% perfect.
“Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 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. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister. (1 John 3:7-10)
You will never commit a single sin. The moment you do. Voilà! You can know that you are not one of the saints.
One of the preachers of this above doctrine is a man named R. C Sproul. Here he is showing utter disdain for another Christian for stating that as a Christian she does not drink. This Holy Spirit that dwells inside him was about to tempt him to drink some Double Scotch on the Rocks. “That’ll show her.” I guess he was thinking as such.
This preacher, R.C Sproul has a son, R.C Sproul Jr. who is known in his community as a big-time alcoholic. His infamous quote, “We are Presbyterians, so we smoke and drink!” as if this is something to brag about, seems to have invoked the wrath of God upon him.
You can read all about this here. The fruits of regeneration and being in the body of Christ:
“Hi Dee and Deb, just a couple of things you might want to correct in this part of your post:”
>> Heart breaking tragedy is not an excuse for substance abuse. Sproul Jr. needs serous help. I learned an important lesson while working in an alcoholic hospital when I was young. Tragedy does not cause alcoholism. Alcoholism is an excuse to drink and every alcoholic in the world usually tries to find an excuse to drink.<<
“Serous help? Haha. Sounds like needs a blood transfusion! …. which is not that far off base: he needs to be born again as this persistent pattern of behaviour shows he is NOT regenerate and is NOT in Christ at all. I wonder whether RC Sproul Senior has accepted that fact yet? I doubt it.”
“And I’m sure you didn’t mean ‘Alcoholism is an excuse to drink’ — I’m pretty sure you meant something like “Alcoholics use tragedy as an excuse to drink…. “
“R C Sproul Junior needs to be put out of the church and that needs to be very publicly done because he has been so significant at Ligonier. 1 Corinthians 5:11-13.”
“But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:11-13)
YOU CAN NEVER LOSE YOUR SALVATION IN CHRIST EVEN IF YOU BECAME AN ATHEIST!?
So, on the other side of this discussion came the logical conclusion that ‘If you played no part in your salvation, then you play no part in your damnation’. ‘If Christ keeps you he will never lose you, no matter what you do!‘
You didn’t save yourself, you won’t lose yourself!
Thus, a Christian could commit adultery, lie, cheat, have homosexual relationships, lie about Islam if it gets them the upper hand in a debate. Because simply put: “Once you are Saved you are Always Saved! A Christian simply put cannot lose their salvation!
“These Christians among them people like Charles Stanely, have positions among them like the following: True Christians will not necessarily persevere in the faith. In fact, a true Christian may receive Jesus as Savior, later become intellectually unconvinced of the gospel, denounce Christ and become an atheist; however, because of that one human decision made at one point in time, he is still considered to be saved. For instance, Joseph Dillow, in The Reign of the Sevant Kings, says, “It is possible for a truly born-again person to fall away from the faith and cease believing.” (p.199). True Christians may fall away completely from the faith and still be saved. God in no way grants them perseverance, or sustains them in their faith.”
There are two books among Baptist Christians that have ignited another battleground, another massive theological divide among Christians.
Version 1.0.0
The two books in question are:
Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. -Zane C. Hodges.
Eternal Security-by Charles Stanley.
Here are some blog links with reviews of these books:
People, Charles Stanly & Zane C. Hodges were heavy hitters among Baptist Christians.
Charles Stanly He also served two one-year terms as president of the Southern Baptist Convention from 1984 to 1986. Zane C Hodges received a master of theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1958. He then taught New Testament Greek and Exegesis (1959–1986) at Dallas Seminary and was chairman of the New Testament Department for some time.
Can you imagine these people and the views they held and this was all seeded in the 80s? Now it is 2025. Is it any wonder that the former United States is in such a condition?
One of many reasons why we do not even take seriously those Christians engaged in calling Muslims to their religion is just how cheaply they treat the suffering and blood of Christ Jesus. The key figures among them associated with people who any discerning Christian should be able to see are in spiritual bondage. If we can see this as a Muslim, why can’t they see that?
This is in accordance with their own standards!
Totally ignored is the following text:
“But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:11-13)
“But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.” (1 Corinthians 9:27)
There is something very spiritually eye-opening about Christians teaming up with atheists to take down Muslims. It’s as if the salvation of the atheists can take a back seat to tearing down Islam.
It is as if there is something that agitates their inner being about seeing women dressing modestly, people praying together, worshiping the one God.
We often wonder what led Christians who debated Muslims to say and do some of the dark things. Among them:
Minister Phil Arms — who used to write books attacking Islam, became addicted to drugs.
Reverend Jimmy Swaggart. The man attacked Islam and Islam’s position on polygamy. Cheated on his wife with prostitutes, potentially introducing an infectious disease to his wife. His ministry never really recovered.
Ted Haggard, former megachurch pastor and head of the 30 million-strong National Association of Evangelicals, struggled with gay sex and methamphetamine. Recently, another Christian minister has come out with claims that Ted also did inappropriate things to him. Ted appeared in Pat Robertson’s the 700 club attacking Islam.
“Dr” Robert Morey, Christian evangelist from the Reformed tradition. Would write booklets against Islam, was famous for his ‘moon god theory’. Lied to the world about his mill degrees, was thrown out by his own denomination for ‘gross habitual financial impropriety’.
Anis Shorrosh, an evangelist, Baptist pastor, debated and wrote against Islam & Muslims. Claimed the Qur’an had grammatical errors and mistakes. Was badly exposed in a debate with an Arab Muslim in which Shorrosh was shown to be not able to read simple passages from the Qur’an. Arrested for burning tax records and in the process almost setting his building on fire. After that, the disgraced pastor left the scene.
Ergun Caner, former dean of the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, lied about being an ex-former devout Muslim. Lied about debating Muslim personalities like Dr. Shabir Ally, was removed from his position on the Liberty University Board. His 15-year-old son, involved in a Twitter war with another pastor, committed suicide.
Time and time again, Christians who attacked Islam & Muslims were handed over to sin and rebellion. Many of them defrauding and fleecing their flock of money. They did more damage to Christianity than Islam, that is for sure.
However, the more we learn about their own understandings of God, the less we become surprised about the things they would get up to.
Even united, they would not fight against you except within fortified strongholds or from behind walls. Their malice for each other is intense: you think they are united, yet their hearts are divided. That is because they are a people with no understanding. (Qur’an 59:14)
“Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:13)
So it is simply not true that whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.
This text has to be interpreted in light of the fact that Christians do leave Christianity. That Christians have other sects that ‘call upon the name of the Lord’ and those sects are deemed as deviant, lost and damned.
OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved)
This is another doctrine that many Christians believe in, in which there are countless texts in the New Testament itself that refute this. However, Christians who push back against this teaching have many proof texts.
They say the following:
Grace does permit immoral living. Does grace permit immorality?
OSAS, or Once Saved Always Saved, they claim, is an emotional doctrine not based on revelation. You have no real basis to call people to true repentance and holiness in life.
We show our love of God by obeying his commands. It is not possible to claim to love God and ignore his commands and prohibitions.
“It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age..” (Titus 2:12)
“But as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, “Be holy, for I am holy.” (1 Peter 1:15-16)
Did Jesus teach Christians a redundant prayer?
“And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.” (Matthew 6:12-14)
“Father, forgive us our trespasses” would seem like a redundant prayer in light of the fact that the claim is that the elect do not trespass.
“But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 24:13)
What does ‘the end’ mean? It means death. A Christian must endure to the end. They are not saved now. They are only saved at the end (that is if they are true believers even to begin with).
“If we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us.” (2 Timothy 2:12)
“He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.” (John 15:2-6)
“Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.” (Romans 11:22)
“You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.”(Matthew 10:22)
“Those on the rocky ground are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.” (Romans 8:13)
“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with mennor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
“But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” (Revelation 21:18)
“If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.” (Hebrews 10:26-27)
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:19)
Now you cannot have your part removed from the book of life or the tree of life unless it was there to begin with.
“As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us—eternal life.” (1 John 2:24-25)
If is a conditional. You will also remain. Which means they are already in the Son and in the Father.
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.” (Matthew 23:37)
“Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12)
Here the New Testament talks about Jesus returning and killing children and rewarding everyone according to their work.
“And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searches the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.” (Revelation 2:23)
“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.” (Matthew 16:27)
Christian widows that have abandoned their former faith in Christ and some have strayed after Satan!
The one who does not provide for his relatives, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever!
“Honor widows who are truly widows. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God. She who is truly a widow, left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day, but she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives. Command these things as well, so that they may be without reproach. But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband,and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work. But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. For some have already strayed after Satan. (I Timothy 5:3-15)
Conclusion
It cannot be said that Christians have assurance of salvation. Many Christians question many things about the fundamentals of their faith. There are just too many unanswered questions about the nature of God, the role of evil, death and sin.
When very learned Christians like the following have deep foundational questions, how much more the layperson?
“How God freely hardens and yet preserves human accountability we are not explicitly told. It is the same mystery as how the first sin entered the universe. How does a sinful disposition arise in a good heart? The Bible does not tell us.” -John Piper
“But Adam and Eve were not created fallen. They had no sin nature. They were good creatures with a free will. Yet they chose to sin. Why? I don’t know. Nor have I found anyone yet who does know.” RC Sproul
Source: Chosen By God, p.31
These are restless minds and restless hearts.
This has led us to believe that the bulk of Christians have not read the Qur’an. They do not read it and ponder it carefully.
We do believe that many Christians have a hunger in their heart and a yearning in their soul for the truth.
Do compare/contrast the Qur’an and it’s account of Genesis chapter 3 with that of the Qur’an.
“He gives wisdom to whom He wills, and whoever has been given wisdom has certainly been given much good. And none will remember except those who understand.” (Qur’an 2:269)
﷽
“He gives wisdom to whom He wills, and whoever has been given wisdom has certainly been given much good. And none will remember except those who understand.” (Qur’an 2:269)
Is there anything internal in the above verse that even remotely suggests that it is a reference to the Qur’an?
Are adherents of the ‘Qur’an Only religion’ seriously going to contend that Allah has only given wisdom to Quranist who understand their particular approach to the Qur’an?
Are adherents of the ‘Qur’an Only religion’ seriously going to contend that Allah has not given wisdom to people who are not Muslims?
In the above verse it is clear that wisdom is neither a reference to the Qur’an or to the Sunnah. It is a reference to discernment in general.
Hikma — understood as ‘wisdom’ or ‘discernment’, has been used and abused by both the traditionalists and the various sects of the ‘Qur’an Only religion‘
The traditionalist will try and conflate the term hikma to only mean ‘the sunnah’ of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
They are partially correct, but the term is a bit more nuanced.
They will end up taking this term hikma and then conflating it with sunnah, such that it now is in reference to all the deeds, actions, and sayings of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
That is simply not true. We believe it was Imam Al Shafi’i who was among the first to make this assertion.
While it can be a reference to all the deeds, actions, and sayings of the Blessed Messenger (saw), it does not necessarily need to be.
The ‘Qur’an Only religion‘, in their rush to refute any authority other than their own individual interpretations of the Qur’an, say that hikma is in reference to only the Qur’an.
They are partially correct as well, but it is not the whole picture.
Now certainty it would be correct to say that the Qur’an is hikma. It can be a reference to the Qur’an. However, the inverse is not true.
To say that every instance of the word hikma refers to the Qu’ran is simply not true. This is where we begin to understand the nuanced meaning and application of the term hikma.
“And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom (hikma) the Law and the Gospel.” (Qur’an 3:48)
It would certainly be odd if we understood this to be, “And Allah will teach him the Book, and the Qur’an and the Law and the Gospel.”
Does anyone think that Jesus (as) taught the Qur’an?
It would also be odd if we understood this to be, “And Allah will teach him the Book, and the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammed, the Law, and the Gospel.”
However, notice something in the text of Qur’an 3:48.
Followers of the Qur’an Only religion will use as an argument that things mentioned in conjunction with one another do not necessarily mean that they are separate.
For example:
“And We had already given Moses and Aaron the criterion and a light and a reminder for the righteous.” (Qur’an 21:48)
So, here in this context, the Torah is being described as a criterion and a light and a reminder. These are three descriptions of the Torah, not three separate sources of guidance.
Whereas we also have an example of three mentioned together that are not the same. In the following verse is mentioned Allah [swt], the angels and all mankind. These three do not equate to being the same.
“Surely those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers, these are those on whom is the curse of Allah and the angels and all mankind.” (Qur’an 2:168)
So in what context is the grammar being used in the verse relating to Jesus?
“And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom (hikma) the Law and the Gospel.” (Qur’an 3:48)
Jesus is being taught the Book, the Hikma, the Law, and the Gospel.
The Arabic transliteration is: wayu’allimuhu l-kitaba wal-hik’mata wal-tawrwata wal-injila.
The Law and the Book and the Gospel are not the same things. It stands to reason that, given the grammar of this verse from a perfect All-Knowing being, that the hikma is a reference to something distinct from the Gospel in a way that the Torah is distinct from the Gospel.
“And when Jesus brought clear proofs, he said, “I have come to you with wisdom (hikma) and to make clear to you some of that over which you differ, so fear Allah and obey me.” (Qur’an 43:63)
How odd would that be if we understood it to be,
“And when Jesus brought clear proofs, he said, “I have come to you with the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammed and to make clear to you some of that over which you differ, so fear Allah and obey me.”
It would also certainly be odd if we understood it as:
“And when Jesus brought clear proofs, he said, “I have come to you with the Qur’an and to make clear to you some of that over which you differ, so fear Allah and obey me.”
“And remember the verses of Allah and the wisdom (Prophet’s sayings) which are recited in your houses. Surely, Allah is Courteous, Well-Acquainted.” (Qur’an 33:34)
Some adherents of the Qur’an Only religion have argued that wisdom here must be Qur’an because the prophetic sayings cannot be considered as being ‘recited’. They believe that ‘recited’ is only a reference to the Qur’an.
The Qur’an refutes this point.
“And they followed instead what the devils had recited during the reign of Solomon.” (Qur’an 2:102)
The Arabic yut’lā – can also mean recounted or rehearsed.
We wanted to make this entrance very brief insh’Allah. There is a huge error in the misunderstanding of the Qur’an by adherents of the ‘Qur’an only religion‘.
If they really looked at the Qur’an and reflected upon it they would not have fallen into such an egregious error.
Hikma is discernment. It is the ability to discern. It is penetrating understanding or insight. The Blessed Messenger (saw) was granted hikma.
Thus, when we hear of the term hikma in relationship to the revelation, we can understand it to mean his exposition of the Qur’an. That would be his Sunnah.
Hikma does mean that Allah (swt) granted him penetrating insights into the Qur’an.
This is obvious from the following verse:
“And obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then Our Messenger is responsible only for conveying the message clearly.” (Quran 64:12)
For example:
“They ask you about menstruation. Say, “It is painful, so keep away from women during their menstruation, and do not approach them until they are purified. When they are purified, you may approach them the way God has ordained you.” God loves the repentant and the purified.” (Qur’an 2:222)
So for example are we to live in a seperate house? Are we to be in seperate rooms? Are we not to eat dinner with them?
“This legal scheme has a surprising impact on Jewish women and their periods. Under Jewish religious laws, a woman is considered “impure” during her menstruation days (“niddah”) and must follow a “purifying” ritual prior to entering and consummating a marriage, as well as during married life itself.”
“Niddah” requires that a woman experiencing her menstruation remain distant from her husband or husband-to-be. She must maintain physical distance (e.g., sleeping in separate beds during her “impure” days) for seven “clean” days, where she checks with cloth that she has no blood in her cervix. This ritual concludes with a “Mikveh” ceremony, where she purifies herself by dipping into a pool of water. Only when this ritual has concluded is the woman “pure” and allowed to consummate the marriage”
It is obvious that the use of hikma would be to know how to employ the Qur’an on issues that are not explicitly mentioned by the Qur’an. The Sunnah provides that clarity.
How to relate the Qur’an to context.
An example:
“And marry not women whom your father married, except what has already passed; indeed it was shameful and most hateful, and an evil way.” (Qur’an 4:22)
This also applies equally to a woman a man’s father has married contractually and to women he has had intercourse with outside of marriage.
Although the Qur’an is not clear on this point. So this is a case of hikma — or discernment. The Sunnah provides clarity on this matter.
Who knows how followers of the Qur’an Only religion deal with this? They are in open rebellion to the idea that anything is an authority outside the Qur’an.
Even though Allah (swt) has said:
“O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best way and the best in result.(Qur’an 4:59)
The life of the Blessed Prophet (saw) is an example of how Muslims should interact with the world around them.
The hikma that has become the mass transmitted sunnah, is his understanding of the Qur’an in all matters.
“He gives wisdom to whom He wills, and whoever has been given wisdom has certainly been given much good. And none will remember except those who understand.” (Qur’an 2:269)
So it is a failure of insight for the adherents of the ‘Qur’an only religion’ to not see that the word hikma was given to the Blessed Messenger (saw) as penetrating insights.
The reason why the various sects of the ‘Qur’an Only religion’ are very uncomfortable with this is due to the fact of their very strained interpretations that the Qur’an ‘explains everything in detail’—which to them leaves no room for expositions, interpretations, or sources of guidance outside of it.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
“It is He who caused the Book to descend to you. In it are verses, that are (muḥkamāt) definitive. They are the essence of the Book and others, ones that are (mutashābihāt) unspecific. Then, those whose hearts are swerving, they follow what was unspecific in it, seeking discord (l-fit’nati) and seeking its interpretation. And none know its interpretation save Allah and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in it; all is from our Lord.” And none remember, save those who possess intellect.” (Qur’an 3:7).”
﷽
“Biologists as well as philosophers have suggested that the universe, and the living forms it contains, are based on chance, but not accident. To put it another way, forces of chance and of antichance coexist in a complementary relationship. The random element is called entropy, the agent of chaos, which tends to mix up the unmixed, to destroy meaning. The nonrandom element is information which exploits the uncertainty inherent in the entropy principle to generate new structures, to inform the world in novel ways.
Source: (Grammatical Man—Information, Entropy, Language, and Life by Jeremy Campbell. Page 15)
The intent of this entry is so that those who are among the Muslims who come into contact with adherents of the Hafs Qur’an Only religion can have some introspection with regard to their own position.
It is hoped that people may be able to look beyond the oversimplification of issues.
Our colleague was once listening to a lecture by Sheikh Hamza Yusuf where he mentioned that as Muslims we believe that the Creator is One, we believe the revelation is one; however, the revelation is being refracted through the prism of the human mind.
It reminded them of the famous cover of the Pink Floyd album “The Dark of the Moon.”
They found it an interesting point.
Clear has been defined as: 1. easy to perceive, understand, or interpret.
“clear and precise directions”
The quality of being clear, in particular.
The quality of coherence and intelligiblity.
Here are some examples of things that are clear but are they intelligible?
You will understand the meaning of the universe once the ball sings to Jill about the biz. Mace Windu understood the peanut butter sandwich using his clear signals so that the computer would jazz out to Dan Excalibur swimming passing the switchboard flying kites. Very funny though the syntax as he whizzed past the train, who was busy cramming algebraic thoughts into his fish tank.
The answer to five minus five is purple because pancakes don’t have bones.
Anyone familiar enough with the English language should be able to understand every word that we have typed above.
However, would anyone care to tell us what we were talking about above?
If the Qur’an is recited to people who do not understand the Arabic language is it clear to them?
The claim of the Qur’an is that it has has verses that are muḥkamāt and mutashābihāt
“It is He who caused the Book to descend to you. In it are verses, that are (muḥkamāt) definitive. They are the essence of the Book and others, ones that are (mutashābihāt) unspecific. Then, those whose hearts are swerving, they follow what was unspecific in it, seeking discord (l-fit’nati) and seeking its interpretation. And none know its interpretation save Allah and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in it; all is from our Lord.” And none remember, save those who possess intellect.” (Qur’an 3:7).”
To us, the Qur’an makes it clear that it is both clear and unclear. If it was not the case, it would not be possible to ‘fitna’ or discord with something that is clear. We have already stated that in other places one of the sure signs of a cult or sect among Muslims is that they will try and appeal to a ‘controversial’ verse, or a verse that is subject to many interpretations to base their case. This has happened many times, especially in matters of theology.
For example, the Qur’an has many verses that make it clear that those who enter the hellfire do not escape from it. However, there are one or two verses that could be interpreted contrary to this. Thus, instead of taking the multitude of verses that make it clear that the one who enters hellfire does not escape from it, the people of the opposition take those one or two verses that are not entirely clear, and they build their theology upon this.
Also notice that the above text says: “And none know its interpretation save Allah and those firmly rooted in knowledge.“
If a text or a revelation was clear in and of itself, it would not only be grasped by men of understanding but by anyone.
Often the Qur’an begins a chapter with something ambiguous and then affirms that it is clear.
Examples abound:
“Alif, Lam, Ra. These are the verses of the Book and a clear Qur’an.” (Qur’an 15:1)
“Alif, Lam, Ra. These are the verses of the Clear Book. Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 12:1-2)
“Ta, Seen, Meem. These are the verses of the Clear Book.” (Qur’an 26:1-2)
“Ta, Seen. These are the verses of the Qur’an and a clear Book“ (Qur’an 27:1)
“Ta, Seen, Meem. These are the verses of the Clear Book.” (Qur’an 28:1-2)
“Ha Meem, By the clear Book, (Qur’an 43:1-2)
“Ha Meem, By the clear Book, (Qur’an 44:1-2)
There is also something interesting here.
Allah (swt) informs us throughout the Qur’an that it is possible that his revelation may not be clear to people.
Examples:
“They ask you about intoxicants and gambling: say, “In them, there is a gross sin and some benefits for the people. But their sinfulness far outweighs their benefit.” They also ask you what to give to charity: say, “The excess.” Allah clarifies the revelations for you, that you may reflect,” (Qur’an 2:219)
“Do not marry idolatresses unless they believe; a believing woman is better than an idolatress, even if you like her. Nor shall you give your daughters in marriage to idolatrous men, unless they believe. A believing man is better than an idolater, even if you like him. These invite to Hell, while Allah invites to Paradise and forgiveness, as He wills. He clarifies His revelations for the people, that they may take heed.” (Qur’an 2:221)
“Allah thus explains His revelations for you, that you may understand.” (Qur’an 2:242)
“Do any of you wish to own a garden of palm trees and grapes, with flowing streams and generous crops, then, just as he grows old, and while his children are still dependent on him, a holocaust strikes and burns up his garden? Allah thus clarifies the revelations for you, that you may reflect.” (Qur’an 2:266)
“You shall hold fast to the rope of Allah, all of you, and do not be divided. Recall Allah’s blessings upon you – you used to be enemies, and He reconciled your hearts. By His grace, you became brethren. You were at the brink of a pit of fire, and He saved you there from. Allah thus explains His revelations to you, that you may be guided.” (Qur’an 3:301)
“O you who believe, do not befriend outsiders who never cease to wish you harm; they may even wish to see you suffer. Hatred flows out of their mouths and what they hide in their chests is far worse. We thus clarify the revelations for you, if you understand.” (Qur’an 3:108)
“They consult you; say, “Allah advises you concerning the single person. If one dies and leaves no children, and he had a sister, she gets half the inheritance. If she dies first, he inherits from her, if she leaves no children. If there were two sisters, they get two-thirds of the inheritance. If the siblings are men and women, the male gets twice the share of the female.” Allah thus clarifies for you, lest you go astray. Allah is fully aware of all things.” (Qur’an 4:176)
“Allah does not hold you responsible for the mere utterance of oaths; He holds you responsible for your actual intentions. If you violate an oath, you shall atone by feeding ten poor people with the same food you offer to your own family or clothing them, or by freeing a slave. If you cannot afford this, then you should fast for three days. This is the atonement for violating the oaths that you swore to keep. You shall fulfill your oaths. Allah thus explains His revelations to you, that you may be appreciative.” (Qur’an 5:89)
“Allah thus explains the revelations for you. Allah is Omniscient, Wise.” (Qur’an 24:18)
“O you who believe, permission must be requested by your servants and the children who have not attained puberty (before entering your rooms). This is to be done in three instances – before the Dawn Prayer, at noon when you change your clothes to rest, and after the Night Prayer. These are three private times for you. At other times, it is not wrong for you or them to mingle with one another. Allah thus clarifies the revelations for you. Allah is Omniscient, Most Wise.” (Qur’an 24:58)
“Once the children reach puberty, they must ask permission (before entering) like those who became adults before they have asked permission (before entering). Allah thus clarifies His revelations for you. Allah is Omniscient, Most Wise.” (Qur’an 24:59)
“The blind is not to be blamed, the crippled is not to be blamed, nor is handicapped to be blamed, just as you are not to be blamed for eating at your homes, or the homes of your fathers, or the homes of your mothers, or the homes of your brothers, or the homes of your sisters, or the homes of your fathers’ brothers, or the homes of your fathers’ sisters, or the homes of your mothers’ brothers, or the homes of your mothers’ sisters, or the homes that belong to you, and you possess their keys or the homes of your friends. You commit nothing wrong by eating together or as individuals. When you enter any home, you shall greet each other a greeting from Allah that is blessed and good. Allah thus explains the revelations for you, that you may understand.” (Qur’an 24:61)
“Know that Allah revives the land after it has died. We thus explain the revelations for you, that you may understand.” (Qur’an 57:17)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
All of these verses, if you removed the phrase ‘Allah thus explains/clarifies the revelations for you’, you could still get an understanding of the verses in question. However, Allah (swt) knows why He (swt) has decided to further elucidate on selected passages of the Qur’an.
Even when Allah (swt) says ‘We thus explain the revelations for you’ in the above passage about Allah (swt) giving life to the land after it has died, it doesn’t explain or clarify the ‘how’ of it. It simply says, ‘Know’.
Theological issues concerning the clarity of the Qur’an.
The Shafite Mutzalite ‘Abd al-Jabbar epitomized the Basra Mutazalite position on the principle of clarity. He declared that any form of delayed clarification was impossible not simply because Allah’s justice requires that he make his requirements known, but more importantly because his speech is his created act, and therefore must be good, from which it follows that his every utterance must fulfill its purpose of indicating his will.
This is a very important point that Shaykh Abd al-Jabbar has made. This is why we know many of the followerse of the Qur’an Only religion are in a very difficult situation theologically speaking.
According to the theory of meaning introduced by Shaykh Abu Ali al-Jubbai’ who was a Mutazalite rival of Shaykh Abd al-Jabbar, the meaning of an utterance is not simply a function of its verbal form, but also of the speaker’s will or intent.
Bottom line. If Allah cannot leave the meaning of his speech unclear, then he cannot leave humans without the evidence needed for reconciling seemingly conflicting texts. The fact that we lack evidence about which text came first must itself be evidence that the text should both be implemented, which is best accomplished by particularization. This is a strong logical proof for the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
In light of all of the above, would it not be fair to assert that this argument is oversimplified and the issue is a little more nuanced than that?
In fact, the clarity of the Qur’an is not internal to the Qur’an itself! It is dependent upon thoughtful reflection!
“Thus do We explain the verses for a people who give thought.” (Qur’an 10:24)
The static you hear in an untuned or poorly tuned radio is the random background noise, but the coherent radio transmission signal within that noise requires a radio receiver to decode it.
The receiver performs several critical functions to achieve this:
Tuning: It selects a specific frequency from the myriad of radio waves the antenna picks up, filtering out others.
Amplification: It strengthens the weak incoming signal to a usable level.
Demodulation: This is the actual decoding step. The receiver separates the original information (such as sound or data) from the carrier wave that transported it.
Output: It converts the decoded electronic signal into an audible sound or viewable data.
The following verse that we are going to quote caused our colleague to drift off in thought. They mentioned that it was challenging to type this as their eyes welled up with tears, and their heart was overflowing in love for the Beloved Vessel (saw) that Allah (swt) gave such a monumental task to carry!
“If We had sent down this Qur’an upon a mountain, you would have seen it humbled and coming apart from fear of Allah. And these examples We present to the people that perhaps they will give thought. (Qur’an 59:21)
Subhan’Allah!
Our point is that the Blessed Messenger (saw) did not have the medium of his mind like we do when approaching the Qur’an with our limited human reasoning and capacity. The total and complete understanding of the Qur’an was poured into his heart. His heart and conscience were light. There is no prism, no spectrum when it comes to the Blessed Messenger. (saw)
Let us be honest for a second and ask ourselves. How many of us can say we have reached the state of total and complete submission in the way that Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammed (May Allah’s choicest blessings and peace be upon them all) did?
The Proof Is In the Pudding.
The very fact that there is now a proliferation of Qur’an only groups, each vying with each other, each with disparate understandings of a revelation that they in their approach to revelation says ‘is clear as day’.
So we end up with some groups saying the Qur’an requires us to pray 2 times a day, or 3 times a day, and some saying that there is no ritual prayer at all!
However, some of the Quraniyoon will just keep throwing their selective verses of choice at you again and again.
I think the point is missed. We as Muslims do not disagree with any verse of the Qur’an as being a revelation. We agree with the Qur’an does it say it ‘explains itself’ and that it is ‘clear’.
Part of that explanation and elucidation comes through the example of the Blessed Messenger (saw) himself.
“It is He Who raised up among the unlettered a Messenger from among them who recounts His signs to them and makes them pure and teaches them the Book and wisdom even though they had been before, certainly, clearly going astray.” (Quran 25:32)
Teaches them– wayuʿallimuhumu — when you teach or instruct someone you are doing more than simply relaying information. A teacher does not simply pass a student a book and say, ‘here you go‘.
Those who follow the Qur’an Onlyl religion will often claim that the Blessed Messenger is only a letter carrier. There is a deception in saying that his only duty is to convey the message.
Yet this is contradicted by the following:
Say, “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then he is only responsible for his duty, and you are responsible for yours. And if you obey him, you will be ˹rightly˺ guided. The Messenger’s duty is only to deliver ˹the message˺ clearly.” (Qur’an 24:54)
“But if they turn away [Messenger], remember that your only responsibility is to deliver this revelation clearly.” (Qur’an 16:82)
The second part of instruction is would relate to things that need demonstration.
“When you are with them and you lead them in prayer, let one group of them pray with you—while armed. When they prostrate themselves, let the other group stand guard behind them. Then the group that has not yet prayed will then join you in prayer—and let them be vigilant and armed.” (Qur’an 4:102)
“Say, [O Muhammed], “If you should love Allah, then follow me, [so] Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 3:31)
The above verse is conditional. The love of Allah (swt) is conditional upon love for the Blessed Prophet (saw).
“Certainly did Allah confer a favour upon the believers when He sent among them a Messenger from themselves, reciting to them His verses and purifying them(wayuzakkihim) and teaching them (wayuʿallimuhumu) the Book and wisdom, although they had been before in manifest error.” (Qur’an 3:164)
It stands to reason that the Blessed Messenger (saw) could not ‘purify’ the believers if he himself was not purified!
teaching them (wayuʿallimuhumu) -it cannot be said that I am teaching anyone if I was simlpy just a mail carrier.
The Qur’an itself refutes this.
“And obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then Our Messenger is only responsible for conveying the message clearly.”(Qur’an 64:12)
The Blessed Messenger (saw) explained the message. That is the purpose of bayan. This is reflected in the words, deeds, and actions — what we know as the sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
To believe that the Blessed Messenger (saw) was not an expositor as someone who lived and imbibed the teachings of the Qur’an is difficult to fathom.
“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)
“Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’an, or are there locks upon their hearts?” (Qur’an 47:24)
There are many people who read the Qur’an and it does not do anything to their hearts. That is because the Islam consist of accepting that Muhammed (saw) is the last of Allah’s Messengers. The Blessed Prophet (saw) is that light. So the people who read the Qur’an without that light they read the Qur’an in darkness.
There was no prism, no veil, and no lock upon the heart of the Blessed Messenger (saw)!
So is the Qur’an clear?
Allah (swt) has made it clear that the Qur’an has verses that are muḥkamāt and mutashābihāt.
“In it are verses, that are (muḥkamāt) definitive. They are the essence of the Book.” (Qur’an 3:7)
Then there are verses that are a trial.
“and others, ones that are (mutashābihāt) unspecific. Then, those whose hearts are swerving, they follow what was unspecific in it, seeking discord (l-fit’nati) and seeking its interpretation.” (Qur’an 3:7)
Even then this verse seems directed at the people who are hasty with the Qur’an as Allah (swt) admonishes the Blessed Prophet (saw).
High above all is Allah, the King, the Truth! Be not in haste with the Qur’an before its revelation to you is completed, but say, “O my Lord! advance me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)
The Qur’an also makes it clear that it requires clarity. We see Allah (swt) himself has to come and introduce phrases such as, ‘Allah thus explains/clarifies the revelations for you’ as if otherwise it wouldn’t be clear.
The Qur’an makes it clear that the Blessed Prophet (saw) would explain the Qur’an and teach it to us.
“Indeed, Allah does not feel shy in citing any parable, be it that of a gnat or of something above it (in meanness). Now, as for those who believe, they know it is the truth from their Lord; while those who disbelieve say, “What could Allah have meant by this parable?” By this He lets many go astray, and by this He makes many find guidance. But He does not let anyone go astray thereby except those who are sinful.” (Qur’an 2:26)
“He it is Who has sent down the Book upon thee; therein are signs determined; they are the Mother of the Book, and others symbolic. As for those whose hearts are given to swerving, they follow that of it which is symbolic, seeking temptation and seeking its interpretation. And none know its interpretation save Allah and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in it; all is from our Lord.” And none remember, save those who possess intellect.” (Qur’an 3:7) -The Study Qur’an.
“It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammed], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise – they are the foundation of the Book – and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, “We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord.” And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.” (Qur’an 3:7) -(Sahih International)
﷽
By the grace of Allah (swt) we have finally got around to writing this article. This is something we have been meaning to write about for some time now.
We asked some brothers to write their experiences of why they chose the Ibadi school or what drew them to the school. We were quite surprised at the re-telling of one story when we read the following:
“I read Ibadis take Qur’an seriously and don’t make tafsir of it to validate their personal prejudices. They believe only Allah knows the Qur’ans true meaning.”
We were really quite shocked and surprised by this. When we tried to correct the brother on this misunderstanding, he was rather recalcitrant. So we simply asked him where he got this information from.
To his credit, he cited the Qur’an 3:7. That is fine and good, but he did not cite any Ibadi sources, saying that only Allah knows the Qur’an’s true meaning. The reason he did not cite them is that none exist! There are no Ibadi sources stating this.
Second, simply using logic, we asked him what was the point of sending a revelation that no one will understand? That is an exercise in futility at best.
Finally, we pointed out to him that his contention (which is certainly not from the Ibadi) was in relation to the mutashabih.
For example, as we read to him the following:
“He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are(muḥ’kamātun) decisive, they are the basis of the Book), and others are allegorical…” (Shakir’s translation)
muḥ’kamātun -which actually can be translated as clear. Or that which does not require further elaboration.
So, even then, we informed him that the muḥ’kamātun verses are certainly not verses in which anyone says that only Allah (swt) knows them. The dispute is rather about the mutashābihātun.
Mutashābihātun is often translated as unspecific, symbolic, allegorical, subject to more than one interpretation or understanding. So the center of dispute is around such verses.
The importance of punctuation.
So here we have two sentences:
I take great pleasure in eating my dog and my plants.
I take great pleasure in eating, my dog, and my plants.
The first sentence would leave the reader with the impression that a person takes great pleasure in eating their dog and their plants.
The second sentence would leave the reader with the impression that the person takes great pleasure in eating, as well as finding pleasure in having a dog and having plants.
This will give you an exhaustive list of different translations. The keen eye will note the following:
Translations that state that Allah and people grounded in knowledge know the meaning of the mutashabiha, such as:
“He it is Who has sent down the Book upon thee; therein are signs determined; they are the Mother of the Book, and others symbolic. As for those whose hearts are given to swerving, they follow that of it which is symbolic, seeking temptation and seeking its interpretation. And none know its interpretation save God and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in it; all is from our Lord.” And none remember, save those who possess intellect.” (Qur’an 3:7) The Study Qur’an.
Translations that state that only Allah knows the meaning of the mutashabiha such as:
“It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammed], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise – they are the foundation of the Book – and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, “We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord.” And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.” (Qur’an 3:7) (Sahih International)
Translations that seem to be ambiguous on the matter due to their punctuation.
“He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.” (Shakir)
“It is He who revealed to you the Scripture. Some of its verses are definitive—they are the foundation of the Book—while others are allegorical. Those with deviant hearts pursue the allegorical, seeking discord and seeking its interpretation. However, none knows its interpretation except God and those firmly grounded in knowledge say, “We believe in it; all of it is from our Lord.” Only those endowed with understanding take heed.” (Talal Itani & AI 2024)
“It is God who has revealed the Book to you in which some verses are clear statements (which accept no interpretation) and these are the fundamental ideas of the Book, while other verses may have several possibilities. Those whose hearts are perverse, follow the unclear statements in pursuit of their own mischievous goals by interpreting them in a way that will suit their own purpose. No one knows its true interpretations except God and those who have a firm grounding in knowledge say, “We believe in it. All its verses are from our Lord.” No one can grasp this fact except the people of reason.” (Muhammed Sarwar)
So what is going on here?
Note that the verse states about the people who are firmly grounded/rooted in knowledge will say that: “We believe in it; all of it is from our Lord.”
Note that the verse talks about some people who are hyper-fixated upon the mutashabiha.
“Then, as for those in whose hearts there is perversity, they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation.”
Note that these people are not described as people of knowledge.
The first principle of interpreting the Qur’an is: Tafsir al-Quran bi-l-Quran. (Interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an)
The second principle is interpreting the mutashabi (unspecific, allegorical, subject to several interpretations) is to establish its meaning by that which is muḥ’kam (foundational, not requiring further clarity).
For example, the Blessed Prophet (saw) can bring elaboration and elucidation.
“With clear proofs and divine Books. And We have sent down to you the Reminder, so that you may explain to people what has been revealed for them, and perhaps they will reflect.” (Qur’an 16:44)
So, when it comes to our faith, we do not base it upon that which is mutashabi. In fact, the beautiful point of this whole verse is not to muddy the waters but to give the believers a clear sign concerning the people of schism and aberrant doctrines. You will more often than not find misguided sects that will base their framework upon a verse(s) that is/are mutashabi. They base theological doctrines upon such.
The people of sound doctrine interpret the mutashabi in light of the muh’kam. Thus, those firmly grounded and rooted in knowledge of the muh’kam are the best capable of extrapolating the meaning of the mutashabi. Chief among them is the Noble Messenger (saw).
Which brings us to our first point.
If we are to understand Qur’an 3:7 as regarding the mutashbi verses that ‘no one can understand except Allah’ then it means those who hold such a position believe that Muhammed (saw), to whom the Qur’an was revealed did not even know the meaning of such verses.
This notion is refuted by the verse already mentioned:
“With clear proofs and divine Books. And We have sent down to you the Reminder, so that you may explain to people what has been revealed for them, and perhaps they will reflect.” (Qur’an 16:44)
The Blessed Prophet (saw) would explain what has been revealed to them. What has been revealed to them is the Qur’an. If the Blessed Prophet (saw) did not understand it, no one ever would. Thus, we would be given a Qur’an in which much of it is concealed from us.
Also, this verse shows that the Blessed Prophet (saw) comprehended what was revealed to him:
“Exalted is Allah, The True King! Do not rush to recite the Quran before it is (yuq’da) conveyed as revelation (waḥyuhu) , and pray, “My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.”
Is it possible that the Qur’an can be concealed from us?
The answer to that is yes. The Qur’an itself mentions that, due to the sinful and/or arrogant nature of some human hearts, they will never be able to penetrate the Qur’an.
“And We place a covering on their hearts so that they do not comprehend it, and We cause a heaviness in their ears; and when you mention your Lord, the Only True Lord, in the Qur’an, they turn their backs in aversion” (Qur’an 17:46)
“And who is more unjust than one who is reminded of the verses of his Lord but turns away from them and forgets what his hands have put forth? Indeed, We have placed over their hearts coverings, lest they understand it, and in their ears deafness. And if you invite them to guidance – they will never be guided, then – ever.” (Qur’an 18:57)
“Will they then not (yatadabbarūna)meditate on the Qur’an, or are there locks on the hearts?” (Qur’an 47:24)
“This is a Book which We have sent down to you, full of blessings that they may (liyaddabbarū) ponder over its Verses, and that (ulu l-albabi)men of understanding may remember.” (Qur’an 38:29)
It is also our contention that the muh’kam verses could have a mutashabi aspect to them which is brought about through tabbadur (reflection, pondering) and using the methods of sound tafsir that are available to us.
An example:
“None touch (yamassuhu) it except the (l-muṭaharūna) purified.” (Qur’an 56:79)
This verse is generally understood by the fuqaha (people of jurisprudence) as a reference to being clean when touching and handling the mushaf of the Qur’an. This makes sense, as reverence towards the sacred text is the obvious meaning.
However, we also know that there are people who are not clean who pick up and touch the Qur’an. Muslims who are not in a state of ablution and people like the demented Christian polemists that ate pages of the Qur’an or the U.S. military that would put the Qur’an into the toilet. (Surely they incurred the curse of Allah, and it remains upon them until they repent).
muṭaharūna-is also understood to mean angels.
Another way to understand the text of Qur’an 56:79 is to understand that yamassuhu is not like ‘yalmasuhu’.
So, for example, in the Qur’an we have:
“If something good ‘tamasakum’ (comes your way), it grieves them.” (Qur’an 3:120) This does not necessarily mean only to physically touch.
Also, in the preceding verse we have:
“In a well-preserved Record.” (Qur’an 56:78)
In this context, the purified (mataharuna) are indeed the angels and this refers to the Tablet in paradise.
That when it comes to the believers, there is an adaab (mannerism) in how we handle the sacred text.
That only those who are sincere and have purity of intention will be moved by this Qur’an and able, by Allah’s grace, find such meanings via reflection.
Point 3 describes such a state or condition of truth seekers among Christians.
“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.”(Qur’an 5:83)
So when it comes to the reading of the Qur’an 3:7 there are two opinions on the matter.
One opinion says that the reader of the Qur’an should stop at: “But none knows its interpretation except Allah.” Then (after a brief pause) continue reading: “and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say.”
The second opinion is that one does not pause, but one should continue reading: “But none knows its interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge. They say,”
So how did this difference come about?
Punctuation marks or (Rumuz al-Awqaf) were added by the scholars after the death of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Diacritical marks (Tashkeel) to distinguish words or grammatical structures were added by scholars after the death of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
ﻡ “This letter mim is an abbreviation of al-waqf al-lazim. It means if a stop is not made here, an outrageous distortion in the meaning of the verse is possible. So, it is better to stop here. Some phoneticians of the Qur’an have also called this al-waqf al-wajib or the obligatory stop. But this is not ‘wajib’ of fiqh, which brings sin if abandoned. In fact, the purpose is to stress that making a stop here is the most preferable of all stops (al-Nashr, 1/231).”
We find this al-waqf al-lazim in Qur’an 3:7 after “except Allah.” This was done with the intention of making the recitation of the Qur’an easier. These additional punctuations, though welcomed for ease of recitation, were neither given by Allah (swt) nor his Blessed Messenger (saw).
This is also something that follow the ‘Qur’an Only religion’ fail to grasp. That is the very textual history and transmission of the Qur’an.
“A. L. R. (This is) a Book, with verses that give judgement (uḥ’kimat) and these are expounded upon (fuṣṣilat) – from One Who is Wise and Well-acquainted (with all things).” (Qur’an 11:1)
An objection based upon improper understanding of the Arabic grammar and syntax.
Beyond the importance of punctuation.
The importance of understanding Arabic grammar and syntax and language!
One objection that is raised is usually by those who do not have a sound grasp of Arabic grammar, or syntax. That objection is as follows:
“But none knows its interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in this it is all from our Lord.”
So the objection is based upon their misunderstanding that Allah (swt) would not say: “We believe in this it is all from our Lord.”
But this is not the proper understanding at all. The verse: “We believe in this it is all from our Lord.” Is a reference to : “Those who are firmly rooted in knowledge.” and not to Allah (swt).
This was a conversation with a brother from the Zaydi school, and we pointed out to him a similar example to this in (Qur’an 18:80) but he has never replied to that point.
What point is that?
Let us give context to the verse:
“As for the ship, it belonged to some poor people, working at sea. So I intended to damage it, for there was a king ahead of them who seizes every ship by force. “And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would pressure them into defiance and disbelief. So we hoped that their Lord would give them another, more virtuous and caring in his place. And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and there was beneath it a treasure for them, and their father had been righteous. So your Lord intended that they reach maturity and extract their treasure, as a mercy from your Lord. And I did it not of my own accord. That is the interpretation of that about which you could not have patience.”(Qur’an 18:79-82)
There are three points here:
Causing damage to the boat fa-aradttu (I intended)
The killing of the child and the subsequent replacement of fakhashina (we disliked) fa-aradna (we intended). A. Killing the child (he returns to himself)B. Allah replaces the child with another one. Killing is from Khidr and the Replacing is from Allah.
Causing the boys to reach maturity. Fa-arada rabbuka (Your Lord intended)
fa-aradttu 1st person singular
fakhashina 1st person plural perfect verb
fa-aradna 1st person plural
fa-arada 3rd person masculine singular
Not really having the depth of Arabic grammar or syntax, one can make these types of mistakes or rely upon this type of misunderstanding. May Allah help us.
A faulty argument used by our side against the other.
There has been a faulty argument that has been used by those of us who believe Qur’an 3:7 should be understood as: Allah and people grounded in knowledge know the meaning of the mutashabiha.
It is used to assail those who believe Qur’an 3:7 should be understood as: only Allah knows the meaning of the mutashabiha.
That argument goes like this.
To say that we believe in it, but we do not know what it means would be like saying we do not know what we believe.
This is not a fair argument against the other side. The reason being is that first, and foremost, there is no group among the Muslims that feel that they are unncertain about what they believe. We may dispute this. However, every group of Muslims are confident and certain about what the core tenets of their belief are.
Secondly, Allah (swt) could have such verses to leave us gobsmacked. Also, to humble us.
“But above those ranking in knowledge is the One All-Knowing.” (Qur’an 12:76)
Prima Qur’an concluding remarks.
It is not the position of the Ibadis school that only Allah knows the meaning of the Qur’an. You are not going to find this in any of the books by the Ibadi.
The difference in understanding of Qur’an 3:7 has to do with the Rumuz al-Awqaf (punctuation marks).
The dispute is not over the muh’kam but rather over who understands the mutashabi.
As the Blessed Prophet (saw) understood the whole of the Qur’an, it is not possible to render the reading as only Allah knows.
The people firmly rooted in knowledge are those who base their understanding upon the muh’kam.
The people whose hearts are given to perversity and deviation go straight to mutashabi.
The irony is that the understanding of this verse must fall under the category of muh’kam or else it would be mutashabi and thus all who give an understanding of it would be among the perverse. The self-refuting nature of this is evident.
With reflection and understanding that which is mutashabi can become muh’kam.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to him.
Say, “Have you considered: if the Qur’an is from Allah and you disbelieved in it, who would be more astray than one who is in extreme dissension? We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness? Unquestionably, they are in doubt about the meeting with their Lord. Unquestionably He is, of all things, encompassing.” (Qur’an 41:52-54)
﷽
If the Qur’an is all that is needed for any person, why would Allah (swt) say that he would show us signs on the horizons and within ourselves until ‘It‘—becomes clear that ‘It‘—the Qur’an—is the truth?
So the question becomes: how do they know that the Qur’an is complete?
For example, there is absolutely nowhere in the entirety of the Qur’an that says “this Qur’an will consist of so many chapters, verses, and letters.” Why do they accept the Qur’an in the arrangement it is now in? What proof does the Qur’an Only religion have to suggest that surah al Fatiha should be placed first and surah an nass last?
Of course, someone could quote the following text: “We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it against corruption.” (Qur’an 15:9)
Yet, this is absolutely beside the point. Everyone would agree with this statement. But the point is that “It” is not internally defined.
Ironically, the adherents of the Qur’an only religion cannot even get past the first verse of the Qur’an without coming to a major decision.
Is “Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem” a verse at the beginning of Surah Al Fatiha or not?
There is absolutely no way to substantiate this claim internally. The irony of ironies here is that rather or not the ‘bismillah’ should be included at the beginning of Surah Al Fatiha is left up to criteria outside the Qur’an to determine!
“Indeed, it is We who have sent down to you, [O Muhammed], the Qur’an, progressively.” (Qur’an 76:23)
Everyone agrees that ‘Basmalla’ is a verse inside the Qur’an.
“It is from Solomon and is (as follows): ‘In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful:” (Qur’an 27:30)
However, why are the followers of the Qur’an Only religion in dispute on rather or not this should occur at the beginning of every chapter or not?
You can go to one Quran Only website and find them not including the bismillah as a verse included before every chapter here: http://www.free-minds.org/quran/PM/2
Whereas other followers of the Qur’an Only religoin openly disputes with those at free-minds.org. You can see the “submitters’ here:
“And We have bestowed upon thee the Seven Oft-repeated (verses) and the Grand Qur’an.” (Qur’an 15:87)
This may be the only place where the Qur’an mentions a section of itself outside another section. In other words, if we are to believe this verse as revelation, it clearly states for us to look out for the ‘seven oft repeated’. Yet, interestingly there is ambiguity surrounding this very verse. That is if we abandon the tradition altogether.
There is a very interesting observation.
It is interesting that the Qur’an mentions that these verses are ‘seven oft repeated’. This can only be confirmed outside the text as we do not find these verses reoccurring in the Qur’an at all.
Who are these people?
“And when you said to the one on whom Allah bestowed favor, and you bestowed favor, “Keep your wife and fear Allah, ” while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose. And you fear the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him. So, when Zayd had no longer any need for her, We married her to you in order that there would not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they no longer have need of them. And ever is the command of Allah accomplished” (Qur’an 33:37)
Who is Zayd?
Why is he mentioned in the Qur’an?
What are these verses all about?
What was it that the Blessed Messenger (saw) concealed that Allah (swt) was about to make known?
How does Allah ‘marry’ someone to the Blessed Messenger (saw) ?
“May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined, and ruined is he. His wealth will not avail him or that which he gained. He will burn in a fire of flames and his wife — the carrier of firewood. Around her neck is a rope of fiber.” (Qur’an 1:1-5)
Who is Abu Lahab?
Why is he mentioned in the Qur’an?
What are these verses all about?
Who is his wife?
What did they do to deserve these descriptions of them from the Almighty?
What major doctrines of Islam would we lose if any of those verses were not in the Qur’an?
Why does Allah (swt) need or even desire to communicate his message through any medium at all?
Be it textual, oral or human. Why not just reveal the revelation directly to each individual directly? Surely Allah (swt) is capable of doing all things.
Why does the Qur’an constantly point to outside sources to verify its claims and veracity?
Some points of consideration:
“Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in what they have in the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So those who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him — it is those who will be the successful.” (Qur’an 7:157)
This verse is very explicit in that the veracity of its statement stands on whether the People of the Book (Ahl Kitab) actually find mention of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
The veracity of the entire Qur’an rests in Muslims being able to prove this claim. The proof of this claim rests in sources outside the revelation itself.
“Say, “Have you considered that which you invoke besides Allah ? Show me what they have created of the earth; or did they have a partnership in the heavens? Bring me a scripture before this or a trace of knowledge, if you should be truthful.” (Qur’an 46:4)
“This Qur’an narrates to the Children of Israel most of what they are in dispute over.” (Qur’an 27:76)
In order to verify this claim, one would have to be intimately familiar with outside sources of reference; in particular, they would have to have a great deal of information concerning the disputes of the Children of Israel.
It is clear that the Qur’an is not a self enclosed eco system.
“And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. Those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge of it, but only follow conjecture. For certainly, they did not kill him.” (Qur’an 4:157)
﷽
Once again, this shows why it is problematic to take the Qur’an alone. We can glean the meaning of words via the process of Tafsir al-Quran bi-l-Quran. (Interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an). However, there are times when you need to appeal to external references to get the full grasp of what is being conveyed.
Sam Gerrans, one of the followers of the Qur’an Only religion, has translated the text of Qur’an 4:157 as:
“157 And for their saying: “We killed the Messiah,1 Jesus,2 son of Mary,3 the messenger of God,” — and they killed him not nor crucified4 him, but it seemed so5 to them; and those who dispute concerning it are in doubt thereof, no knowledge have they thereof save the pursuit of conjecture — and they killed him not of a certainty.”
Notice that Sam has a note (4) by the word ‘crucified’.
Or put to death by stake. Arabic: ṣalaba. By convention the Traditionalist has understood ṣalaba as to crucify. That understanding is, perhaps, at odds with what Qur’anic usage indicates. In the Qur’an, Firʿawn is called the Lord of Stakes (38:12, 89:10) — which collocation is typically rendered thus by the Traditionalist himself. This fact certainly suggests that the form of capital punishment meted out by Firʿawn featured a stake. The options available for killing a man on a stake are limited. In close proximity to the verb commonly rendered crucify (ṣalaba) Firʿawn threatens that punishment will be inflicted ‘on the trunks of date-palms’ (20:71) — thus lending credence to the notion that the trunks of date-palms were trimmed and sharpened to facilitate impalement. In addition, Firʿawn threatens to cut off hands and feet from alternate sides before executing the punishment in question (7:124, 20:71, 26:49). Attempting to crucify one thus disfigured would be both impractical and run the risk of creating morbid farce — which itself would defeat the point of most of what benefits a tyrant from the public torture of his enemies: the creation of fear. Finally, a date-palm does not possess a crossbar, nor can one readily be made from a second date-palm — a requisite item if we are discussing crucifixion in an intellectually honest manner. However, I render ṣalaba and ṣallaba throughout as to crucify, as per the norm, and confine my dissent to the notes.
Prima Qur’an comments. Sam is correct in that by interpreting the word here in the other places where it is mentioned, you do not get the understanding of a crucifixion. A patibulum with nails placed in the hands and feet.
At least Sam is on board in recognizing that Qur’an 4:157 does not speak of a crucifixion.
However, in his notes he states: ‘Or put to death by stake.’ This is where reliance upon extra Qur’an information comes into play. Because it is via that extra Qur’anic material that one realizes that Jews do not crucify people at all. It is not part of their repertoire.
In fact, to suggest that Qur’an 4:157 should be rendered as crucifixion as the Shi’i and Sunnis do would render the Qur’an of human origin. It is not possible that Allah (swt) would be ignorant of Jewish methods of execution.
Another follower of the Qur’an Only religion, Edip Yuksel, in his Reformist Translation would render Qur’an 4:157 as follows:
“We understand that Jesus was not conscious when they crucified his body.” Jesus’person was already terminated, and he was at his Lord.
However, on the Islamawakened website it has Edip saying:
For their saying, “We have killed the Messiah Jesus the son of Mary, the messenger of God!” They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them as if they had. Those who dispute this are in doubt of him, they have no knowledge except to follow conjecture; they did not kill him for a certainty.
So it looks as if Edip is prepared to lie about Allah (swt) and equally worse impute to Allah (swt) ignorance of Jewish methods of execution.
We can look at a few more translations by those who follow the Qur’an Only religion.
“And for claiming, “We killed the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s Messenger.” They never killed him and never crucified him. But it appeared so to them and the matter remained dubious to them. Those who hold conflicting views on this issue are indeed confused. They have no real knowledge but they are following mere conjecture. Very certainly, they never killed him.”
The Monotheist Group translates Qur’an 4:157 as:
“And their saying: “We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, messenger of God!” And they had not killed him, nor crucified him, but it appeared to them as if they had. And those who dispute are in doubt regarding him, they have no knowledge except to follow conjecture; they did not kill him for a certainty.”
Rashad Khalifa translates Qur’an 4:157 as:
“And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him – they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him.”
Another follower of the Qur’an Only religion that goes by the name of Joseph Islam has the following to say in regard to Qur’an 4:157.
There are many places where Joseph Islam has fumbled.
First, he renders Qur’an 4:157 as:
“That they said (in boast), “Indeed (Arabic: Inna), We killed Jesus Christ, the son of Mary, the Messenger of God”. And they killed him not, nor did they crucify (Arabic: Salabuhu) him, but it appeared so to them (Arabic: Shubbiha), and indeed those who differ in it are surely in doubt (Arabic: Shakkin), with no (certain) knowledge(Arabic: Ilmin), but only follow assumptions (Arabic: Zani), for certainly they did not kill him”
Joseph acknowledges the double denial.
(2) GOD’S RESPONSE TO THE CLAIM OF THE JEWS BY ANALYSING SOME KEY ARABIC TERMS
God’s initial response is two-fold.
(a) They did not kill him
(b) They did not cause Prophet Jesus (pbuh) to die ‘in a well known manner’ (Arabic: Salabuhu)
Joseph then proceeds to tell us:
The word ‘Salabahu’ is formed from the Arabic root word: Sad-Lam-Ba which means:
To put to death by crucifixion, to extract marrow from bones, to put to death in any well known manner of killing.
Please see related article [1] below.
To be crucified one would need to ‘die‘ on the cross / pole or stake. Death by this manner can range from a few hours to days and can be a result of blood loss, hypovolemic shock, infection related sepsis or by dehydration. However, for crucifixion to be complete, death would be necessary.
Therefore, the primary significance of the word ‘Salabahu’ means to put to death in a well known manner. This may mean by a process of crucifixion, but is not restricted to it.
Prima Qur’an comments: The claim that Sad-Lam Ba which means: ‘To put to death by crucifixion.’ is probably one of the biggest lies that LANE. E.W, Edward Lanes Lexicon has ever fostered. One that Joseph had decided to repeat.
Joseph continues:
007:124
“I will certainly cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, then will I will crucify you all together (Arabic: uSALIBANNAkum)”
A popular translation above renders the word ‘Salibanna’ as crucify when all the Arabic implies is a ‘well known manner of death’ at the time of Pharaoh’s reign which may or may not imply crucifixion on a cross.
Prima Qur’an comments:
Again, Joseph is trying to escape reality. Neither does SALIBANNA mean in a ‘well known manner of death’. This is Joseph’s way of saying I do not know, neither does the Qur’an give clarity on the matter.
In fact, by saying ‘well known manner of death’ one would need to be familiar with the types of death that were implemented. This would mean, of course, appealing to information that is external to the Qur’an.
So let us go back and analyze what Joseph had stated:
Joseph acknowledges the double denial. This is something virtually all followers of the Qur’an only religion ignore. The double negation.
(2) GOD’S RESPONSE TO THE CLAIM OF THE JEWS BY ANALYSING SOME KEY ARABIC TERMS
God’s initial response is two-fold.
(a) They did not kill him
(b) They did not cause Prophet Jesus (pbuh) to die ‘in a well known manner’ (Arabic: Salabuhu)
Prima Qur’an comments: The well known manner of execution by the Jews is stoning. After stoning, the Jews impale an individual. This is a post-mortem suspension punishment. Kindly see the article above with Rabbi Dov Stein.
Once one realizes this, we can dispense with:
Sunni views of some other individual being made to look like Jesus and this person was put on a cross.
Qadiani views of Jesus being on a cross and then taken down alive.
Ismaili views of Jesus dying on a cross (as a body) not as a soul.
Another follower of the Qur’an Only religion has his own twist. Allah kills Jesus, not the Jews, but his corpse is taken up into heaven. Later he (Jesus) will be resurrected.
Dear reader, you may not fail to notice the dancing around the verse Qur’an 4:157.
This Shuaib Abdullahi translates Qur’an 4:157 as:
“And their saying, “Indeed, we killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah,” when they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but it was made to appear so to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him for certain.”
Conclusion: Out of all of them, Sam Gerrans came the closest. Yet, he admittedly follows the tradition! “However, I render ṣalaba and ṣallaba throughout as to crucify, as per the norm, and confine my dissent to the notes.” Joseph Islam tried to skirt around the fact that, according to the Qur’an alone methodlogy the Qur’an does not give clarity on the matter. Thus, he implores the ‘well known manner of death’. This in and of itself is an appeal to extra Qur’anic data.
For those interested, please see our article here:
“It is He Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are Verses that are entirely clear; they are the foundation of the Book: others are not entirely clear. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is not entirely clear, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:” and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.” (Qur’an 3:7)
﷽
It is our humble opinion that the verse above in the Qur’an is a very wise and beautiful criterion for establishing when someone or some group is trying to create dissension among the ranks of the Muslims. Namely, when they are trying to create sectarian views and/or break away from the faith of Islam altogether.
It has been our experience time and again that every time we run into some pseudo-Islamic group that want us to join their particular theological, juristic or spiritual understanding of Islam, they will more often than not quote those verses that are not entirely clear. They will attempt to give fixed meanings to verses that are not entirely clear. Rather, what they should do is fear Allah and be humble.
These people should say rather, ‘This is what it could mean.’ ‘This is a possible meaning or an interpretation of the verse.’
One such group is the ‘submitters’. As they have also split into several groups over the years, or there has arisen dissension in their ranks, we will give you links to their websites so that you can read from their perspectives and form your own conclusion. Ultimately, Allah alone is the source of guidance.
We have included two additional websites that are ‘spin-offs’ from the submitters -splinter groups. Those that, over the course of time, ended up having some differences between each other.
These, to our limited knowledge, are the more prominent websites that espouse the view of following one of the many sects among the Qur’an alone religion.
What is interesting is that submission.org claims that the Qur’an is divinely protected and safeguarded by an interlocking mathematical code based upon the number 19.
“Over it are nineteen. And We have not made the keepers of the Fire except angels. And We have not made their number except as a trial for those who disbelieve – that those who were given the Scripture will be convinced and those who have believed will increase in faith and those who were given the Scripture and the believers will not doubt and that those in whose hearts is hypocrisy and the disbelievers will say, “What does Allah intend by this as an example?” Thus does Allah leave astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And none knows the soldiers of your Lord except Him. And mention of the Fire is not but a reminder to humanity. (Qur’an 74:30-31)“
What the submission.org people advocate is that this verse above refers to the phrase ‘bismillah ir rahman ir raheem‘ which is translated as ‘with the name of Allah the Most Gracious the Most Merciful’. That this phrase is key to the interlocking mathematical code that the Qur’an is based upon.
To us, the numbernineteen above in context refers to the angels, or ‘soldiers’ who are guarding the hellfire. However, if it is unclear what the number nineteen is a reference to, then this is exactly what Allah warned us about in the (Qur’an 3:7) “But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is not entirely clear, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings…”
The submission.org people also make an issue of the letters that will often appear at the beginning of many chapters of the Qur’an.
For example:
Alif Laam Meem Raa (Qur’an 13:1)
Alif Laam Meen (Qur’an 3:1)
Alif Laam Meem (Qur’an 2:1)
These letters, standing alone at the beginning of chapters, have puzzled many Muslim scholars. However, submission.org attempts to give fixed meaning to that which is not entirely clear.
Rashad Khalifa (chief architect) of submission.org also completely ignored what Allah said by taking two verses out of the Qur’an!
He took them out because the letters in the verses did not tally with his number nineteen interlocking mathematical code.
“We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it.” (Qur’an 15:9)
So for 1400 years, the Qur’an had these ‘two extra verses’ and no one noticed that until Rashad Khalifa came with his interlocking mathematical code based upon the number nineteen?
The number 19 interlocking mathematical code has not been shown to work with other ahruf/qira’at*of the Qur’an.
*Note. ahruf/qira’at refer to different transmissions of the Qur’an and ways of recitation. Allah willing, we will have some entries about this in the future as well.
To us, these facts alone make the claims of Rashad Khilafa very dubious.
Here is a glaring inconsistency for anyone to investigate for themselves.
You will see them give their take on the prayer. Now notice something very interesting when it comes to the call to prayer (azaan)
This is what they have written:
Azaan is not a part of the Contact Prayers, nor is it required. But it has become a tradition in the Muslim communities to summon the people to prayer through a loud announcement. The original Azaan used to conform with the Quran’s teachings and became corrupted with time.
Originally, the call to prayer consisted of: (1) Allahu Akbar (God is Great), 4 times. (2) Laa Elaaha Ellah Allah (There is no other god beside God), once. Many years later, some people added Muhammad’s name to the Azaan. This violates God’s commandments in 2:136, 2:285, 3:84, 4:150, and 72:18. Later, other groups of Muslims added the names of Ali and his family. Today, the Azaan is severely corrupted throughout the Muslim world and constitutes idol worship, not submission to God ALONE.
Prima Qur’an comments:
1 Notice that there is no problem with the call to prayer being accepted as a handed-down tradition or practice in the Muslim community?
2. “The original Azaam used to conform with the Quran’s teachings, and became corrupted with time.” Notice that they do not even furnish any evidence or proof for this.
3. “Originally, the call to prayer consisted of.” Again noticed that no proof is furnished of how the call to prayer was ‘originally’.
4. When Muslims say in the call to prayer that Muhammed is the Messenger of God, submission takes things too far by declaring it idol worship.
Under the section:
What Nullifies Ablution
“Digestive excretions through the intestines, including gas, solids, or urine nullify ablution. Sleeping also nullifies ablution, since one becomes unaware. Thus, one may observe a number of Contact Prayers with one ablution, provided he or she does not go to the bathroom, pass gas, or fall asleep.”
Notice absolutely no reference from the Qur’an.
2.The Intention
“In your own language, secretly or audibly, state your intention that you are about to observe the Contact Prayer. Remember to state the time (dawn, noon, afternoon, sunset, or night).”
Notice absolutely no reference to the Qur’an. Why would I have to say my intention? Isn’t God aware of what I am about to do?
3. “Raise your hands to the sides of your face: Your thumbs touch your ears, and the palms of your hands face forward.”
Notice absolutely no reference from the Qur’an.
5. The Standing Position:
“You are now standing with your arms resting naturally at your side. Some people place the left hand on the stomach, and the right hand on top of the left hand. Either position is correct – you may place your hands on your stomach while standing, or you may let your arms hang down by your sides.”
Notice absolutely no reference from the Qur’an. How does he know that ‘either position is correct’? The Qur’an does not say anything on the matter!
The Contact Prayers and The Quran’s Mathematical Code
“As noted above, the Dawn, Noon, Afternoon, Sunset, and Night Prayers consist of 2, 4, 4, 3, & 4 units, respectively. When we put these 5 numbers next to each other we get 24434, and this number is a multiple of 19 (24434 = 19 x 1286). The common denominator of the Quran’s code is 19. This phenomenon confirms that the number of units for each Contact Prayer has been preserved intact, but the sequence 2, 4, 4, 3, and 4 is also confirmed.”
Now notice how contrived this is! He claims that the sequence of 2, 4, 4, 3, and 4 is confirmed. Where is it confirmed? Well, accordingly, you can place 24434 divided by 19 and get 1286! Hmm well, o.k! So what is so special about 1286? Also, notice we could shift the number of units around. For example, we could say the night prayer is 2 units, the dawn prayer is 3 units, the sunset prayer is 4 units, the afternoon prayer is 4 units, the noon prayer is 4 units and we would get 23444. In fact, you could shift it around a number of ways.
This is completely contrived! If you don’t believe that, just read on and see what he says concerning the Friday Prayer.
The Friday Prayer
“The Friday Congregational Prayer (Salat Al-Jum`ah) is so important, a whole sura is entitled “Friday” and a commandment is decreed in Verse 62:9 to observe this prayer. Every Submitter – man, woman, and child – is commanded by God to observe the Friday Congregational Prayer.”
“The Friday Prayer replaces the Noon Prayer every Friday. Instead of 4 units, the Friday Prayer consists of listening to two sermons delivered by the Imam, and two units of prayer.”
Where does he get this from? The Qur’an does not say that. Let us see if we use his formula of 19. 22434/19 =1180.7368. Hmm, well o.k. What is so special about 1180.7368?
We have given the links above to their web sites. As far as we are concerned this whole idea of the Qur’an is based upon the number 19 is more arbitrary than anything else.
However, not all of the Qur’an only groups that broke away from Islam to form their own religion direct their anti-tradition stance simply based upon the number 19. Many of the followers of the Qur’an only religion also have broken off from Rashad Khilafa. They do not buy into the number 19 claim. Many of them simply refer to verses contained within the Qur’an itself.
Examples:
“Shall I then seek a judge other than Allah? When it is He Who has revealed to you the Book fully detailed?” (Qur’an 6:114)
“Should We treat the ones who have surrendered the same as those who are criminals? What is wrong with you, how do you judge? Or do you have another book which you study? In it, you find whatever you wish to find?” (Qur’an 68:36-38)
“Have you considered those who were asked to accept judgement from Allah’s Book? When they are asked to accept judgement from Allah’s Book, some of them turn their backs and walk away!” (Qur’an 3:23)
“These are the verses of Allah which we rehearse to you with the truth. Then in what Hadith will they believe in after Allah and His verses? (Qur’an45:6).”
Here are some of the many reasons why we feel it is not practical to take from the Qur’an alone. We will also present some reasons why it can be problematic to take from the Qur’an alone.
1) The position of Qur’an Only Religion simply divorces the Qur’an from history. The Qur’an becomes devoid of any context. There are many verses in the Qur’an that address the Blessed Messenger (saw) and his community. Anyone who even has a cursory reading of the Qur’an will see this is the case. There is no doubt that there is an intimate relationship between the Qur’an and the Blessed Messenger (saw), as well as his community. The Qur’an was revealed in ‘real-time’ to address the needs and concerns of the community.
Allah never says in the Qur’an that we cannot look outside the Qur’an for guidance and elucidation. Allah simply reminds us that the Qur’an is the final criterion for this.
“And they say: “None will enter Paradise unless he is a Jew or a Christian.” Those are their desires. Say: “Produce your proof if you are truthful.” (Qur’an 2:111)
Now can you imagine Allah commanding us to tell the Jews and Christians to produce their proof/evidence, and we do not have people who are qualified to do that? It doesn’t make any sense. You can imagine that the Jews and Christians will indeed produce their proof/evidence. If the claim to produce your proof is a sincere claim, then we have to examine what they produce.
“Say, “I do not find within that which was revealed to me] forbidden to one who would eat it unless it is a dead animal or blood spilled out or the flesh of swine – for indeed, it is impure – or it is disobedience, dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced, neither desiring nor transgressing, then indeed, your Lord is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 6:145)
So could we understand from this verse that it is perfectly fine for us to cook food with bone marrow from swine, and we could also consume swine fat. We could technically cook with pig lard. The command in the Qur’an is very clear that the prohibition is only against the flesh of swine. Believe it or not, this is the opinion of the scholar Ibn Hazm. He rejected Qiyas (analogy) though he later modified some of his positions. Ibn Hazm was a follower of Dawud Az-Zahiri and promoted a literal interpretation of the Qur’an.
“Permitted to you, on the night of the fasts, is the approach to your wives. They are your garments and ye are their garments. Allah knoweth what you used to do secretly among yourselves, but He turned to you and forgave you; so now associate with them, and seek what Allah Has ordained for you, and eat and drink, until the white thread of dawn appear to you distinct from its black thread; then complete your fast till the night appears.” (Qur’an 2:187)
How are we to obey this ruling of the Qur’an if we were to live in parts of Alaska, Finland, Norway, and Sweden when there are 6 months of darkness and 6 months of light? If we live in that region, do we just not fast at all?
“And establish prayer and give zakah and bow with those who bow [in worship and obedience].” (Qur’an 2:43)
How much are we to pay for the zakah?
“O you who have believed, when you rise to perform the prayer, wash your faces and your forearms to the elbows and wipe over your heads and wash your feet to the ankles. And if you are in a state of janabah, then purify yourselves. But if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and do not find water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and hands with it. Allah does not intend to make difficulty for you, but He intends to purify you and complete His favor upon you that you may be grateful.” (Qur’an 5:6)
Those who are familiar with the Shafi school of jurisprudence know that they understand ‘have contacted women‘ means simply touching a woman. That, by simply touching a woman, a person would need to perform their ablutions. This is due to an ambiguity in the Arabic word for ‘touch’ or ‘contacted’. So does the phrase above ‘you have contacted women‘ mean sexual intimacy or simply touching them?
“As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment,by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.” (Qur’an 5:38)
Would this verse mean a child who steals ice cream from a shop? Would it mean any theft regardless of the monetary value? What happens if the person has one hand? Does that also get lobbed off? What happens if the person has no hands, but is simply an assistant thief? For example, we help a person to steal by filling his or her pockets with items. In this case, we are both stealing something. This person has no hands, so what is the punishment here?
One could go on and on with this.
Conclusion:
It is clear from the Qu’ran itself that it does not explicitly prohibit Muslims from taking other sources of guidance. There is no such verse in the Qur’an that would not allow us to quote the hadith. There is not a single prohibition in the Qur’an. The Qur’an only warns us to be on guard against false teachings. The Qur’an teaches us that it is the filter for any source of guidance. That, ultimately, the Qur’an is the source of guidance. To take the Qur’an alone presents many problems, simply because the Arabic language lends itself to an array of interpretations or understandings. If we were to take a literal approach to the Qu’ran without recourse to customs, analogy, logic, deduction, inference, etc, it would present us with many conundrums.
“So for their breaking of the covenant, We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good.” (Qur’an 5:13)
﷽
By the grace of Allah (swt), this entry will take a look at a very important hadith that is attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw).
Several Companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) allowed narrating ḥadīth by meaning(riwāyah bil-maʿnā) rather than by exact wording(riwāyah bil-alfāẓ).
Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an:
“We have not sent a messenger except in the language of his people to clarify for them. Then Allah leaves whoever He wills to stray and guides whoever He wills. And He is the Almighty, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 14:4)
“Indeed, We have made this easy in your own language so perhaps they will be mindful.” (Qur’an 44:58)
“Sufyan Al Thawri used to say: “When you see a man show strictness in the wordings of hadith, now that he is advertising himself.” He narrated that a certain man began to question Yahya ibn Sa’id Qattan (d. 198) about a specific wording inside a hadith. Yahya said to him; “Ya Fulan! there is not in the whole world anything more sublime the Book of Allah, yet He has permitted that its word be recited in seven different dialects. So do not be so strict!”
Source: (Cf. al-Shaf’i, al-Risala p.274).
This argument was brought forward by the illustrious scholar Sufyan Al Thawri.
Some examples of the above:
The difference between “Malik” (مَلِك) and “Maalik” (مَالِك) in Surah Al-Fatihah is one of the most well-known distinctions between the two canonical recitations (riwayat) of the Quran: Hafs ‘an ‘Asim and Warsh ‘an Nafi’.
First, We should confirm the exact difference: Hafs uses “Malik” (King) while Warsh uses “Maalik” (Master/Owner). It’s important to explain this isn’t a contradiction but a valid variant rooted in the oral transmission of the Quran.
Both readings are linguistically sound and are supported by the Arabic language.
مَلِك (Malik): Derived from the root م-ل-ك (M-L-K), which relates to kingship, sovereignty, and dominion. It emphasizes authority and power to rule.
مَالِك (Maalik): Also derived from the same root م-ل-ك (M-L-K), but in the pattern of fa’il, which emphasizes ownership and possession.
“We have not sent a messenger except in the language of his people to clarify for them. Then Allah leaves whoever He wills to stray and guides whoever He wills. And He is the Almighty, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 14:4)
Is that a lie? Allah (swt) most certainly did not say that in the Qur’an. That is because what we have given you is an English translation of the meaning and not the Arabic. The Qur’an was revealed in Arabic.
Does this mean now that every time someone were to quote the Qur’an in another language that they are lying or are they giving us the meaning? Because any time you translate something into another language it is not adverbatim.
This is the difference between Ad litteram and Ad sensum.
Ad litteram:
Meaning: “To the letter”; literal and exact.
Focus: Preserving the original wording, structure, and grammatical form as closely as possible.
Example: A translation that is word-for-word and may sound awkward in the target language but is an exact replica of the source text. An example of this is the phrase: parlez vous francais when rendered ad litteram in English would be: Speak you French?
Ad sensum:
Meaning: “To the sense” or “according to the meaning.”
Focus: Conveying the idea or spirit of the original text, even if it requires deviating from the literal wording.
Example: A translation that sounds natural and fluent in the target language by rephrasing or restructuring sentences to capture the original idea.
The Messenger of Allah saw was asked about a man who narrates Hadith but switches the order of its phrases. He said: “There is no harm in it as long as he conveys the meaning.”
Source: (النص العربي (ص ٣٨٩): al-Ḥākim al-Tirmidhī’s Nawādir al-Uṣūl, p. 389 (Dār al-Jīl edition)
The mutawatir -mass transmitted reports attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw).
Even in the example of what is considered to be a mass-transmitted report attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw), it has come down to us in two forms.
Narrated by ‘Abdullah bin Az-Zubair: “I said to my father, ‘I do not hear from you any narration (Hadith) of Allah’s Apostle as I hear (his narrations) from so-and-so?” Az-Zubair replied. l was always with him (the Prophet) and I heard him saying “Whoever tells a lie against me then (surely) let him occupy, his seat in Hell-fire.”
Narrated by Anas: “The fact which stops me from narrating a great number of Hadiths to you is that the Prophet said: “Whoever tells a lie against me intentionally, then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-fire.”
“Whoever lies about me willfully, let him take right now his seat in the Fire!” A mass-narrated (mutawatir) hadith reportedly from many companions in Al Bukhari and Muslim.
One version is narrated by Ibn Abbas by Ahad with three chains, al Tirmidhi (hasan), and with a sound chain—Ibn Abi shayba begins with the words “Avoid relating my words except what you know for sure.”
Source: (The Four Imams & Their Schools by Gibril Fouad Haddad page 132)
Narrated by Ali: “The Prophet said, “Do not tell a lie against me, for whosoever tells a lie against me then he will surely enter the hell-fire.”
We also have the following hadith: Narrated by Al-Mughira: “I heard the Prophet saying, “Ascribing false things to me is not like ascribing false things to anyone else. Whosoever tells a lie against me intentionally, then surely let him occupy his seat in Hell-Fire.” I heard the Prophet saying, “The deceased who is wailed over is tortured for that wailing.”
There is nothing to preclude that the Blessed Prophet (saw) said both of those statements. That is because, in reality, one does not contradict another. A person who relates from the Blessed Prophet (saw) the meaning of what he says is no different from one who conveys Islam in another language quoting Allah from the Qur’an in the local vernacular.
Analyzing the above hadith:
Narrated by ‘Abdullah bin Az-Zubair: ” I said to my father, ‘I do not hear from you any narration (Hadith) of Allah’s Apostle as I hear (his narrations) from so and so?” Az-Zubair replied. l was always with him (the Prophet) and I heard him saying “Whoever tells a lie against me then (surely) let him occupy, his seat in Hell-fire.”
Prima Qur’an Comments: In the above hadith there is no prohibition against narration of hadith. We see this from the information: “as I hear (his narrations) from so-and-so.” This information does not contradict the other information lying about him intentionally. This may be the reason that Az-Zubair did not narrate. He felt that he may slip in this regard.
This can be seen from the other hadith:
Narrated by Anas: “The fact which stops me from narrating a great number of Hadiths to you is that the Prophet said: “Whoever tells a lie against me intentionally, then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-fire.”
Prima Qur’an Comments: Now Anas is obviously narrating hadith. However, he is relating that he is doing his level best to be circumspect in the transmission of the hadith. This even with the caveat of: “whoever lies against me intentionally.”
Which brings us to another interesting hadith.
We also have the following hadith: Narrated by Al-Mughira: “I heard the Prophet saying, “Ascribing false things to me is not like ascribing false things to anyone else. Whosoever tells a lie against me intentionally, then surely let him occupy his seat in Hell-Fire.” I heard the Prophet saying, “The deceased who is wailed over is tortured for that wailing.”
Prima Qur’an comments: Here Al Mughira is concerned with lying about the Prophet (saw) intentionally. He also then mentions a piece of information concerning the Blessed Prophet (saw) that he thinks is correct. He stated: “The deceased who is wailed over is tortured for that wailing.”
Now please see the following Hadith
“Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Ubaidullah bin Abi Mulaika: One of the daughters of ‘Uthman died at Mecca. We went to attend her funeral procession. Ibn ‘Umar and Ibn Abbas were also present. I sat in between them (or said, I sat beside one of them. Then a man came and sat beside me.) ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar said to ‘Amr bin ‘Uthman, “Will you not prohibit crying as Allah’s Apostle has said, ‘The dead person is tortured by the crying of his relatives.?” Ibn Abbas said,“Umar used to say so.” Then he added narrating, “I accompanied Umar on a journey from Mecca till we reached Al-Baida. There he saw some travelers in the shade of a Samura (A kind of forest tree). He said (to me), “Go and see who those travelers are.” So I went and saw that one of them was Suhaib. I told this to ‘Umar, who then asked me to call him. So I went back to Suhaib and said to him, “Depart and follow the chief of the faithful believers.” Later, when ‘Umar was stabbed, Suhaib came in weeping and said, “O my brother, O my friend!” (on this ‘Umar said to him, “O Suhaib! Are you weeping for me while the Prophet said, “The dead person is punished by some of the weeping of his relatives?” Ibn Abbas added, “When ‘Umar died I told all this to Aisha, and she said, ‘May Allah be merciful to Umar. By Allah, Allah’s Apostle did not say that a believer is punished by the weeping of his relatives. But he said, Allah, increases the punishment of a non-believer because of the weeping of his relatives.” Aisha further added, “The Quran is sufficient for you (to clear up this point) as Allah has stated: ‘No burdened soul will bear another’s burden.’ ” (35.18). Ibn Abbas then said, “Only Allah makes one laugh or cry.” Ibn Umar did not say anything after that.
Prima Qur’an Comments: So this is a powerful example. From the information we are provided above both Al-Mughira and Umar had the position that the Blessed Prophet (saw) said: “The dead person is punished by some of the weeping of his relatives?”
However, Aisha says: “Allah’s Apostle did not say that a believer is punished by the weeping of his relatives. But he said, Allah, increases the punishment of a non-believer because of the weeping of his relatives.”
However, her additional point of “The Quran is sufficient for you” to clear up this point as Allah has stated:”No burdened soul will bear another’s burden.’ ” (35.18) Actually, this does not clarify matters.
That is because the verse does not speak about believers or disbelievers. One would wonder how this verse speaks about the punishment of a non-believer because of the weeping of his relatives and not the believer?
This would once again show the supremacy of the Blessed Sunnah. That is because Aisha (ra) must have received some insight in regard to this verse that was not even known to Ibn Abbas.
Obviously, among the companions who heard things from the Blessed Messenger (saw) were those who knew better than others on various issues.
So you can see on the issue of whether someone is punished in the grave because of the weeping of the relatives, that the companions themselves had differences of opinion on this issue. It is an important issue.
Notice that when the matter was brought before Aisha that she appealed to the Qur’an. She quoted a verse that could be used to describe believers or unbelievers equally. However, she must have had some insight that shows this verse is applicable to the believers and not the unbelievers.
Notice that Aisha prefaces her statement with: May Allah be merciful to Umar. This is followed by an oath ‘By Allah’.
The importance of not changing the meaning of what is conveyed from the Blessed Prophet (saw).
“So for their breaking of the covenant, We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good.” (Qur’an 5:13)
An example from the New Testament.
Simple changing of words or changing the place of words drastically alter theology.
“That evening after sunset, the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. The whole town gathered at the door, and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was. (Mark 1:32-34)
In the narration given to us above, it is said that the people brought ‘all’ of those who were sick and demon-possessed; but that Jesus healed ‘many’.
“When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick.” (Matthew 8:16)
In the narration given to us above it is said that the people brought ‘many’ of those who were sick and demon-possessed; but that Jesus healed ‘all’.
This is a simple changing of words, yet it has a huge theological impact. A Jesus who can heal ‘all’ is far better than a Jesus who simply healed ‘many’.
If they brought many and that number was 20, Jesus healed all. If they brought all and that number was 20, Jesus healed many; possibly 15.
The addition or subtraction of one word can completely change the meaning of something.
Example:
All the apples in the basket are good.
All the apples in the basket THAT are good.
In the first sentence, we can see that all the apples are good. In the second sentence, we can see that the addition of the word ‘that’ tells us that not all the apples in the basket are good. In this case, one would need to use caution.
Conclusion:
There is no harm in relating the hadith of the Blessed Messenger (saw) via (riwāyah bil-maʿnā). Yet this in and of itself has its conditions. The Qur’an itself came to us by various routes of transmission. In our day-to-day calling to Islam we quote from the Qur’an in the vernacular of the people we speak to. It is very important not to make the Blessed Prophet (saw) or Allah (swt) say what he did not say.
We mentioned in that review the following concerning Dr. Brown’s book:
The section “Western debates over historical reliability” is an absolutely essential read for those highly critical of Hadith literature.
Especially the section on ‘Western Evaluation‘.
Where he quotes from the works of Nabia Abbott, David Powers, Fred Donner, and Harold Motzki, all who do not dismiss Hadith literature outright.
These are the names of scholars that those people who reject the hadith in totality would prefer you do not know about.
In fact, one of the claims by people who reject the hadith in total is that that textual hadith came along some 250–300 years after the Blessed Messenger (saw).
Here is a German orientalist, Dr. Harald Motzki, who takes the followers of the ‘Qur’an only Religion‘ to task for this assertion.
The following entry is a must-read for anyone who holds the assertion of textual hadith coming some 250–300 years after the Blessed Messenger (saw).
We have yet to see anyone from the ‘Qur’an Only’ movement interact with any of Dr. Motzki’s material in any meaningful way at all.
This is worth a read if we are looking at being fair and honest.
Again, we feel that the Prima-Qur’an approach, as embodied by the Ibadi school, is a middle ground between rejecting the traditions in their entirety, and accepting the traditions in their entirety.
“The Musannaf of Abd al-Razzaq al-San’ani as a Source of Authentic Ahadith of the First Century A.H.” – by Harald Motzki
Prima Quran 
