“Allah said, O Jesus, I shall cause you to die and will exalt you in my presence and shall purify you of the ungrateful disbelieving people, and shall place those who follow you above those who deny the truth, until the Day of Judgement; then to Me shall all return and I will judge between you regarding your disputes.”(Qur’an 3:55)
“Allah! There is no god but He,-The Ever Living, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal.” (Qur’an 3:2)
﷽
Can God Die?
The answer to this question is the death knell to Christianity.
This is the question that every Christian who thinks he/or she is saved should really know the answer to. This is the question that anyone who is even considering Christianity as a viable faith tradition should be asking themselves.
This is why Christianity fails as a faith tradition on a very basic and fundamental level.
It simply does not reveal the true nature of God. In Islam, God is the Ever-Living God, and as such it is an impossibility for God to die. A dead god would be no God. A God that dies even for a fraction of a nanosecond in time could not by definition be called ‘The Ever Living’ God.
“God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.”(1 Timothy 6:15-16)
“Incline Your ear, O Lord, and hear; open Your eyes, O Lord, and see; and listen to all the words of Sennacherib, who sent them to reproach the living God.” (Isaiah 37:17)
So now who or what died on the double-cross?
There are serious intra-Christian debates that rage over this issue until this very day. You would think the answer would be simple: “Jesus died on that double cross.” That is until you investigate the debate that rages between Miaphysis, Monophysis, and Dyophysis.
One group proclaims that Jesus has divinity and humanity continuing in Him without mixture or separation, confusion or change. He is one and the same person both in his eternal pre-existence.
They claim that if you separate the natures after the union and say that Jesus is in two natures, you will be confronted with serious theological problems. For example, you will have to admit that Jesus merely died as a man.
Yet that does not take the Oriental Orthodox off the hook either. Because statements like “without mixture or separation” are really not saying anything at all. Did his one nature that is neither mixed or seperated die?
So, in strict Monophysitism, the crucifixion risks meaning that God’s single nature actually suffers and dies—a view many Christians consider theologically problematic.
If Jesus had only one, divine nature (Monophysis), then He didn’t truly die, as God cannot die. This would make the Crucifixion a sham. In this view people witnessed nothing more than a hologram on the double cross.
If Jesus were two separate persons (called Nestorianism), then only a human person died, and God merely watched. This would mean humanity was not truly saved.
Just as God is not tempted, doesn’t increase in knowledge, doesn’t require sleep, God does not die.
God didn’t die. God’s essence did not die. God the Father did not die. God, the Holy Spirit, did not die. God the Son did not die.
That is the end of Christianity. It so frustrates Christians in debates with Muslims that the Christian immediately pushes a panic button and will either introduce a non sequitur, or statements that are not analogous at all.
“Even my Muslim friends don’t believe that death is the cessation of life!” I have heard one of them say. So the Christian tries a diversion tactic. Say something truthful about your opponent that they are forced to agree with and take the tension out of the room.
To our dismay, time and time again, Muslim debaters let Christians off the hook on this.
True, Muslims believe that there is life after death, but the Christian is trying to avoid the subject of death altogether. Muslims also believe that our souls are created; they are not eternal. Muslims believe that we do indeed die.
So that which Christians claim died on the double-cross: Was it created or eternal? And notwithstanding the fact that there is life after death, back to the pointed question:
Who or what died on the double-cross?
If they say a man died on the double-cross, then there was no redemptive sacrifice. After all, what is the point of the incarnation if man alone can atone for the sins of mankind.
Saying the god-man died is also nonsensical, as that would be saying that the two natures co-joined died.
“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28)
Which also begs the question: what did God really sacrifice?
We can’t say God sacrificed his life because God cannot die.
We can’t really say that God sacrificed his son because he got his son back.
We can’t even really say that God sacrificed time, as God exists outside space/time.
Which also still leaves our Christian friends in their sin.
All that happened, in reality, was a cosmic charade. In the end, a man was left to suffer. God didn’t partake in any suffering. It was simply flesh that was abandoned on the double-cross.
Perhaps this is why the writer of this Gospel is making a theological statement.
It says, “About the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice,” ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’” (Matthew 27:46)
Jesus is speaking as flesh here. The Father can never abandon the Son because they are co-eternally joined in one essence.
All that was left was flesh, the same flesh that we are told can’t please God.
“Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.” (Romans 8:8)
The Creator cannot be overcome by his creation. Both death and life are creations of God.
“Who has created life and death that He may try you which of you is best in conduct; and He is the Mighty, the Forgiving.” (Qur’an 67:2)
It is both blasphemous and nonsensical to think of a God that is one in essence that is shared with three persons, that anyone of those persons could actually be dead. That in and of itself would destroy the Trinity.
The central theme of Christianity is that the Divine entered into his Creation and died for us. It is the very undoing of the Christian faith tradition itself.
“And say: Truth hath come and falsehood hath vanished away. Lo! Falsehood is ever bound to vanish.” (Qur’an 17:81)
“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)
May Allah Guide them to the truth so that they do not burn in hellfire.
“Then learned Adam from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord turned towards him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful” (Qur’an 2:35-37)
“Say, “Is it other than Allah I should desire as a lord while He is the Lord of all things? And every soul earns not [blame] except against itself, and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.” (Qur’an 6:164)
﷽
“Then learned Adam from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord turned towards him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful” (Qur’an 2:35-37)
The above touching heartfelt verse teaches us original forgiveness.. We know that he was forgiven because it was Allah that taught Adam the very words by which to seek reconciliation with The Divine!
Allah! Ar Rahman Ar Raheem! Allah!!!! Most Merciful!!!! The Ever Compassionate!!!!
After he learned to turn towards Allah (swt), he was forgiven. That is it. Full stop!
There is no sin through which death entered the world, causing amoebas and single-celled organisms and everything else to die because of this person’s actions!
Now, dear respected reader, what you read is two different accounts of what happened with Adam and Eve.
You are not reading a Muslim response to Genesis chapter 3. We want to make that very clear.
What you are reading is what God has revealed in the Qur’an.
The choice you need to make is to discern which of these two accounts is true. The account as given by God in the Qur’an or the account as given in Genesis chapter 3.
It is important for you as a Christian, dear reader, to understand that the concepts of Original Sin, Inherited Sin, Total Depravity, Limbo, God Incarnate, the idea of God sending a ‘Son’, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, Vicarious Atonement, Justification by Faith, Paul’s letters and the entirety of the New Testament all have their basis in Genesis chapter 3.
There is no need for Muslims to engage in any of these other beliefs, because if what God revealed in the Qur’an about Adam and Eve is correct, then all of these Christian beliefs that have their basis in Genesis chapter 3 are in and of themselves irrelevant.
Genesis chapter three is all that stands between Islam and Christianity.
One chapter in the entire Bible is all that separates Islam and Christianity.
If it was not for that chapter in the Bible there would be no Christianity.
That particular chapter gives us the following:
Original Sin
Inherited Sin
Total Depravity
Limbo
The concept of God Incarnate
The need for God to send His Son
The Crucifixion
The Resurrection
Vicarious Atonement
Justification By Faith
Paul’s Letters
The New Testament as a whole.
Adam and the events that unfolded in the Garden of Eden is such a central theme in Christology and if we were to juxtapose the events as related by Genesis chapter 3 with what is revealed in the Qur’an, we will be able to get a deeper appreciation of what is central that divides the two faith traditions.
We will also find out that which brings much needed clarity.
Let us begin with the question:
Who truly committed The First Sin?How does sin enter into the universe?
What does sin mean?
Christians define sin as transgression, lawlessness, and missing the mark.
The first issue to clear up is that Christians are absolutely forced to agree with Muslims on this.
The first sin, missing the mark or transgression against Allah, was done by a non-human entity!
In Christian theology, it is an X-Angel named Lucifer.
In Islamic theology, it is a Jinn named Iblis.
Either way, it was not Adam or Eve (May Allah’s peace be upon them both) that erred first.
“So behold, We said to the angels: “Bow down to Adam: “And they bowed down: not so Iblis: he refused and was arrogant: he was of those who reject Faith. We said: “O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in the Garden, and eat of the bountiful things in that respect as you will, but approach not this tree, or you will run into harm and transgression.”(Qur’an 2:30-37)
Sin enters into the universe via beings created with sovereign choice.
The sovereign choice to obey or to submit to the will of God.
So the position of Islamic theology is clear. Howeve, have you ever read any text anywhere in the Bible that makes the claim that Satan was an X-Angel named Lucifer and that he rebelled against Allah?
There is no such text anywhere in the Bible at all! It is a fable that came into Christian circles from apocryphal sources. The best attempt at trying to glean such a view comes from the following:
“How have you fallen from heaven, the morning star? You have been cut down to earth, You who cast lots on nations.” (Isaiah Chapter 14:12)
What did Protestant reformer John Calvin have to say about this text?
“How art thou fallen from heaven! Isaiah proceeds with the discourse which he had formerly begun as personating the dead, and concludes that the tyrant differs in no respect from other men, though his object was to lead men to believe that he was some god. He employs an elegant metaphor, by comparing him to Lucifer, and calls him the Son of the Dawn; 220 and that on account of his splendor and brightness with which he shone above others. The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance, to imagine that Lucifer was the king of devils, and that the Prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables.”
As Calvin rightly states, it is a metaphor. Otherwise, we have the very awkward situation of calling Jesus ‘Lucifer’ as Lucifer simply means “Morning Star” or a reference to Venus — a star that outshines the others.
Jesus is called “Lucifer” or Morning Star in the following verse in the Bible.
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.” (Revelations 22:16)
There are two other texts that Christians often appeal to as well:
“And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” (Luke 10:18)
This text says nothing about Satan being an X-Angel or that his name was Lucifer etc.
“So war broke out in heaven and Michael and his angels fought against the Dragon and his angels, and the Dragon and his angels prevailed not.” (Revelation 12:7)
This is possibly the closest text as it does mention angels waring with each other in heaven. Yet this text does not mention angels becoming X-Angels, but rather angels at war with each other.
At the very least, the Christian book of Revelation and the Qur’an both point to the fact that a non-human(s) was(were) the first to transgress or sin against Allah; however, there are major points of difference in the two theologies.
In Christian theology, an X-Angel rebelled against Allah. However, in Islamic theology it was a Jinn. In Islamic theology, angels do not go against the divine plan. There is a race of beings known as the Jinn that can go against the divine plan.
So the first question here would be: Why is there not a doctrine of salvation for fallen angels? In Islam, we know that the Qur’an was sent to save humanity and the Jinn.
“So when we (Jinn) heard the guidance, we believed in it. And whoever believes in his Lord will not fear deprivation or burden.” (Qur’an 72:13)
“And We have sent you not but as a mercy for the ‘Alamin.” (Qur’an 21:107)
‘Alamin (mankind, jinn, and all that exists beyond)
“You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror.” (James 2:9)
So, in Islam, any being that sins against Allah (swt) can repent and reconcile with Allah (swt).
“By which Allah guides those who pursue His pleasure to the ways of peace and brings them out of darknesses into the light, by His permission, and guides them to a straight path.” (Qur’an 5:16)
The second question would be: Who wants to go to a heaven where wars break out? I mean people constantly deride the Qur’an for its metaphorical usages of women and wine in paradise; yet the Christian heaven is one of intrigue, assassination attempts, and wars!!!
In Islamic theology, the fall of Iblis (not the fall of humanity) fits logically into the greater picture of Allah’s wisdom.
However, we want to know in Christian theology what is to prevent the next disgruntled angel from trying to create wars and strife in heaven?
Finally, the Qur’an gives us a teaching of original forgiveness!! Allahu Kareem (Allah is Most Generous)
Though Adam did transgress, he was not the first transgressor.
The story of Adam, Eve and the Garden as compared/contrasted by Genesis chapter 3 and the Qur’an.
The whole Genesis account gives us a picture of a capricious divine being that lacks attributes of mercy, wisdom, justice or foreknowledge.
Again, dear truth seeker, contrast again the accounts in Genesis and the Qur’an.
“The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” (Genesis 6:5-7)
Now, this does not sound like a divine plan at all. This sounds like a plan going terribly wrong.
How can a person find hope in the Christian tradition when Allah himself is in despair?
To attribute despair and regret to Allah is an affront to divine sovereignty and to the understanding that Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware.
Contrast dear reader the absolute lack of sovereignty, will, and divine foreknowledge as given in the above passage with what Allah has revealed to us in the Qur’an.
“Behold, your Lord said to the angels: “I will create a vicegerent on earth.” They said: “Will you place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- while we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify your sanctity?” He said: “I know what you know not.” (Qur’an 2:30)
“So set your purpose for the way of life aligned with humanity’s upright nature – the nature (framed) by Allah, in which He has created humanity. There is no altering of the work wrought by Allah. That is the correct way of life, but most men do not know.” (Qur’an 30:30)
The angels look at the crude form of humanity and immediately see the capacity for violence. Also, notice that the angels are basically saying that they praise and worship Allah (swt) as is so what possible purpose does humanity serve?
The response of Allah (swt) is “I know what you know not.” That was a sufficient response to the angels. In other words, there is a plan for humanity.
You should know, dear reader, that in the order of Creation in Islam there are four types of creation with regard to will (choice).
Two in the unseen world.
Angels which oscillate at frequencies of pure light. They do not go against their nature. Thus, there is no concept of fallen angels in Islam.
Jinn are beings which are made from a fire that does not emit smoke. These beings can go against their nature and go against the divine plan.
Two in the natural seen world.
Animals, plants and other living creations that do not go against their nature.
Humanity can go against nature and go against the divine plan.
The first point of agreement between Christianity and Islam concerning Adam and Eve is that they were both blameless and sinless. They also had to have in some sense had the faculties of reasoning and understanding in order to understand commands and prohibitions.
The whole of Christianity is based upon Genesis chapter 3.
That one chapter presents to humanity a bizarre picture of The Divine Being and human destiny. It is the very foundation upon which Christian theology is built.
Whereas the Islamic Theological position is simply surrendering to the will of Allah. Adam and Eve slipped, they were reprimanded and ultimately forgiven.
Whereas in Christology, Adam and Eve were placed in the company of their mortal enemy with absolutely no heads up and no warning!
Can you imagine what kind of loving father puts their children in a garden with a shape-shifting entity intent on hurting the children and when the shape-shifting entity ends up duping the children, not only are the children punished but the whole of humanity is culpable for their slip?
Contrast this with what Allah revealed in the Qur’an.
“Did I not forbid you from the tree and tell you that Satan is to you a clear enemy?” (Qur’an 7:22-23)
“So We cautioned, “O Adam! This is surely an enemy to you and to your wife. So do not let him drive you both out of Paradise, for you would then suffer hardship.” (Qur’an 20:177)
“We cautioned, “O Adam! Live with your wife in Paradise and eat as freely as you please, but do not approach this tree, or else you will be wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 2:35)
Adam and Eve were good creatures with a free will. Yet they chose to sin. Why?
Adam and Eve had sovereign free will.
Adam and Eve were not alone. They had an agent provocateur.
We can see that Allah clearly gave warning to Adam and Eve about their enemy and disobeying Allah. In fact, due to this warning about an adversary in Islam, Adam and Eve are more culpable than they are in the Christian tradition!
Whereas in Genesis 3 there is no indication of any agent provocateur at all! It’s as if Adam and Eve were walking into an ambush!
“God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.” (Genesis 1:31)
“Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.”(Genesis 3:1)
All that God creates is very good. God created snakes (serpentes) that were very good and very crafty at the same time?
Not only this, but to show you this vengeful portrayal of the Divine has whole entire species (serpentes) or snakes condemned simply because a shape-shifting entity imitated one of their kind!
“So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.” (Genesis 3:14)
So even more bizarre is the fact that Satan doesn’t get punished at all in Genesis chapter 3. It is the entire species of snakes (serpentes) that get punished instead!
“Allah said, “Descend, both of you, from here together ˹with Satan˺ as enemies to each other. Then, when guidance comes to you from Me, whoever follows My guidance will neither go astray ˹in this life˺ nor suffer ˹in the next˺. (Qur’an 20:123)
What was the snake’s method of locomotion before it was to “crawl on it’s belly?”
Why wouldn’t Allah know that Satan was either a shapeshifter who appeared as a snake (serpentes) or that Satan made it appear that a snake (serpentes) was speaking to them?
It doesn’t justify a punishment upon a whole suborder of animals, namely snakes (serpentes).
So none of this is good! None of this is an accurate portrayal of A Wise and Judicious Creator working in this world. None of this is an accurate portrayal of the attributes of mercy, wisdom, justice, foreknowledge, or will at all!
The whole Genesis account gives us a picture of a capricious divine being that lacks attributes of mercy, wisdom, justice or foreknowledge.
Again, dear truth seeker, contrast again the accounts in Genesis and the Qur’an.
“The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” (Genesis 6:5-7)
Now, this does not sound like a divine plan at all. This sounds like a plan going terribly wrong.
How can a person find hope in the Christian tradition when Allah himself is in despair?
In the Christian tradition, the agent provocateur is not immediately punished. Rather, wrathful punishment is given to an entire suborder of animals, namely snakes (serpentes).
To a Muslim reading and reflecting on this, it all seems very bizarre and even a case of misplaced judgement.
As Allah says in the Qur’an:
“My mercy has encompassed everything.” (Qur’an 7: 156).
Allah (swt) never states that his wrath encompasses everything but his mercy does.
You cannot imagine anything not benefiting from His mercy; otherwise, nothing could have come to existence, and even if so, nothing could have survived.
Even the fact that Satan is able to continue his life is due to Allah’s mercy. When Satan insisted on his wrong behaviour and was cursed, he requested Allah to be given time until the day of Resurrection:
“My Lord. Respite me until the day they will be resurrected.” (Qur’an 15:36)
Allah replied:
“You are indeed among the reprieved until the day of the known time.” (Qur’an 15:37-38)
The very role of Satan/Iblis as laid out in the Qur’an.
He said: “Since you have let me wander off, I’ll waylay them along Your Straight Road; then I´ll come at them from in front of them and from behind them, on their right and on their left. You will not find that most of them are grateful.” (Qur’an 7:16-17)
The whole point of Iblis, the arch enemy of mankind is to show that most of us (humanity) will be kaffir (ungrateful) to Allah (swt).
“And incite whoever you can of them with your voice, mobilize against them all your cavalry and infantry, manipulate them in their wealth and children, and make them promises.” But Satan promises them nothing but delusion.” “You will truly have no authority over My servants.” And sufficient is your Lord as a Guardian.” (Qur’an 17:64-65)
“Allah said, “This is the Way, binding on Me: you will certainly have no authority over My servants, except the deviant who follow you,” (Qur’an 15:41-42)
What is it that Allah makes obligatory on himself? To give certain of his creations choice.
“Allah responded, “Be gone! Whoever of them follows you, Hell will surely be the reward for all of you—an ample reward.” (Qur’an 17:63)
Genesis chapter 3. The Origin of Wrath or the Origin of Forgiveness? Is the woman to blame or are Adam and Eve both culpable?
Apparently, according to the Book of Genesis, after Adam and Eve ate from the tree of good and evil and had a conversation with Allah, they were quite cavalier about the whole ordeal.
Whereas Allah tells us in the Qur’an that the progenitors of the human race were more sensible, whereas they said:
“They said, “Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves, and if You do not forgive us and have mercy on us, we will surely be among the losers.” (Qur’an 7:23)
“Then Adam learned from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord turned towards him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful” (Qur’an 2:35-37)
This is the teaching of original forgiveness, and we know that he was forgiven because it was Allah that taught Adam the words by which to seek reconciliation with the divine.
Also, of note that in Islamic theology both Adam and his wife were deceived and both asked for forgiveness, and they were both forgiven. Whereas in Christian theology the woman is the one who was deceived.
“And he succeeded in deceiving them. As soon as the two had tasted [the fruit] of the tree, their nakedness became obvious to them, and they started covering themselves with leaves from the Garden. Their Lord called to them, “Did I not forbid that tree to you and tell you, ‘Satan is your clear enemy?” (Qur’an 7:22)
“And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” (1 Timothy 2:14)
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. (Genesis 3:6-7)
Now pay attention to the above text. The woman was apparently duped by the Snake (Serpentes). However, when she took the fruit and ate it didn’t she realize immediately that she was naked so that she could warn her husband?
Apparently not. The text allows for interpretative story telling. Such that Eve got the fruit (she hadn’t eaten it yet) and then brought some to Adam. They began to eat together and had the joint discovery together. Yet, this is where the text is extremely hurtful to women in a way that the Qur’an never is.
The question now arises.
Did Eve just give Adam the fruit without telling him what it was? Or did Eve tell Adam where that fruit was from, and he ate it anyway?
The text simply does not say.
Imagine a man who steals a fruit from a garden, and he gives it to another man to eat that fruit. In Christian theology, both the man who stole the fruit and the one who ate it are guilty. However, in Islamic theology, as long as the man who eats the stolen fruit is unaware that the fruit is stolen, he is not guilty of eating stolen fruit.
So, in Christian theology, Adam is punished for a sin he very well could have been unaware of! Islamic theology does not allow this type of ambiguity. Especially, in regard to the severity of the consequences of such an action in Christian theology.
The nature of death and dying in Christianity and Islam. Are human beings culpable for the sin and errors of others?
“And no burdened soul can bear another’s burden. And if one weighed down by a burden calls another to carry his load, naught of it will be carried, even though he be near of kin. You warn only those who fear their Lord in secret and keep up prayer. And whoever purifies himself purifies himself only for his own good. And to Allah is the eventual coming.” (Qur’an 35:18)
Contrast this with:
“For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being: For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life.” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22).
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people because all sinned. To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.” (Romans 5:12-14).
Death and the nature of death.
“He is the One Who created you from clay, then appointed a term ˹for your death˺ and another known only to Him ˹for your resurrection˺—yet you continue to doubt!” (Qur’an 6:2)
“We settle whatever We will in the womb for an appointed term, then bring you forth as infants, so that you may reach your prime. Some of you die earlier, while others are left to reach the most feeble stage of life so that they may know nothing after having known much.” (Qur’an 22:5)
“He brings you out as an infant, then causes you to grow into full maturity, and then causes you to grow further so that you may reach old age, while some of you He recalls earlier. All this is in order that you may reach an appointed term and that you may understand.” (Qur’an 40:67)
“His is the dominion of the heavens and the earth. He gives life and causes death, and He is over all things competent.”(Qur’an 57:2)
Allah is the giver of death, the taker of life. One of the names of Allah is the Taker of Life.
Because Allah is also the giver of life.
“Say, “Call upon Allah or call upon the Most Merciful. Whichever name you call -To Him belongs the best names.”(Qur’an 17:110)
“For the wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23)
Prima Qur’an Comment: “The wages of sin is death.” So because of what Adam and Eve did not only does this sin get transferred to every newborn child, but amoebas, single-celled organisms, insects, fish, and every type of living thing dies because of this.
This peculiar doctrine leads one to reflect on some of the following points:
What kind of world would there be if nothing died?
Surely if Allah created predatory animals there would be animals that would be the prey?
If Allah ordered Adam and Eve to eat all the fruit, surely the fruit would ‘die’ once it was removed from said tree or plant?
What would be the population of the planet if nothing died?
Al hamdulilah! We as Muslims do not have such a bizarre and unnatural doctrine. Death is a natural part of life. In fact, we as Muslims believe that Allah (swt) is Al Hayyu (The Ever Living).
What would be the point of calling Allah ‘The-Ever-Living’ if all living things were to be ‘Ever-living’ as well?
The very fact that Allah, God, is ‘The Ever Living’ in and of itself shows you that the nature of everything else is opposite to that. This includes Adam.
Death is a contrast to life so that we understand the sacredness of life, the sanctity of life, and to appreciate the limited time we have been given to live on such a beautiful planet that offers many delights.
There is an entire Goth subculture in the West. They see death as something beautiful.
There is beauty in things not lasting and a peace in knowing that everything is in transition. It causes one to embrace the moment and to cherish the now. Perhaps more than the busy denizens of the city, the goth appreciates the currency of time, and they understand that, perhaps more than most, one must spend it wisely.
One of the contributors to Primaquran, ‘Abd al-Mumit’ chose this name because of this very fact.
There is no eternal permanence except Allah.
If Christians claim that Adam’s death was a ‘spiritual death‘, you have to reflect on the following:
Why is there absolute silence on Adam’s reconciliation to Allah in the Book of Genesis?
In light of Adam’s knowledge of the tree of ‘good and evil‘, why does the Bible portray Adam and Eve as so cavalier regarding their spiritual estrangement from Allah?
Adam is such a central figure, especially in Christology, and we hear nothing more than that he had some children and then died.
The deity of divine forgiveness and restoration for all or the deity of divine wrath, making pain and suffering the path of redemption for the few.
The God that desires that we are sincere, that we repent with a contrite heart and gives opportunity after opportunity for man to reform.
“It is not their flesh, nor their blood, reaches Allah, but it is your piety that reaches him. Thus has He made them subservient to you, that you may magnify Allah for guiding you. And give good news to those who do good.” (Qur’an 22:37)
This statement from the Qur’an is very important. Accordingly, the first idea of blood sacrifice goes back to the story of Cain and Abel.
The Biblical Version:
“Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man.” Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time, Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favour on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering, he did not look with favour. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” (Genesis 4:1-7)
The Version in the Qur’an:
“Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! They each presented a sacrifice (to Allah): It was accepted from one, but not from the other. He said: I will most certainly slay you.”Surely,” said the former, “Allah does accept of the sacrifice of those who are righteous.” (Qur’an 5:27)
Prima Qur’an comments:
Notice that in both accounts we are not told of the treachery that one of the brothers did. In fact, up until the point of murder, whatever he did that estranged him from his Lord was kept as a personal matter between him and God.
The Christians get the idea [with absolutely no proof] that Allah favoured Abel’s sacrifice because he brought Allah some fat — a sacrifice from one of his flock. Whereas, according to the Christians, Allah didn’t like the vegetables that Abel brought.
Now think about this for a moment. Doesn’t this make God sound capricious? Of course, it does!
However, you can read in both accounts in the Qur’an and in the Bible that the reason that one sacrifice was accepted was due to the fact that one was righteous. It was the state of his heart and not what was presented!
So who will it be?
Contrasting a divine being that delights in the blood atonement and suffering from an animal, the outward material things of this world, with that of a divine being that looks at the contents of the human heart.
“The Day when neither wealth nor children shall profit, only the one will be saved who comes before God with a sound heart.” (Qur’an 26:88-89).
“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)
May Allah Guide them to the truth so that they do not burn in hellfire.
“And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: “O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you.”(Qur’an 61:6)
“And appoint him a messenger to the Children of Israel.” (Qur’an 3:49)
﷽
From cover to cover, the Bible is a book for the Children of Israel, about the Children of Israel, and to the Children of Israel. 95% of the book is all about the Jews and Israel. There is about 0.5% of the entire book that is bothered to be dedicated to Gentiles.
Jesus was the last prophet sent to Israel. His mission and objective was to be threefold.
A) To reach out to the lost sheep of Israel.
B) To instill a spirit of holy resistance against tyranny and oppression.
C) To tell the Children of Israel about the coming of Ahmad- The Praised One
“And he will go on before the Lord, and in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” (Luke 1:16-17)
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 Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is of the Jews.” (John 4:22)
“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls at pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.” (Matthew 7:6)
This comes under the teaching of judge,and you will be judged. It is clear that this is a reference for how Jews should deal with each other. It is clear because, within this context, Jesus’ attitude towards non-Jews is reflected by referencing them as dogs and pigs.
A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly. Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” (Matthew 15:22-23)
“My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” Jesus did not answer a word.
Can you imagine the level of disregard displayed here? The woman came with her daughter whose soul was vexed by a demon, and she was ‘suffering terribly’. Jesus was unmoved by her plight.
Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)
Again, there was absolutely no interest in helping a woman whose daughter was suffering terribly and was vexed by a demon.
“The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” (Matthew 15:24-25)
The woman comes herself and pleads to Jesus. He again is completely unmoved. Even puts the lady in the company of dogs.
Jesus never taught a non-Jew anything. There may be 4 or 5 examples of him healing someone, but he never taught a non-Jew anything. No time nowhere!
“Yes, it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” (Matthew 15:27)
Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.”(Matthew 15:27-28)
Only once did the woman recognize her place as not being at the table but only as a dog taking the crumbs that her matter was attended to. Her faith or belief was in knowing her place.
THE ONLY COMMISSION OF JESUS: LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions:
“Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5-6)
“My people have been lost sheep; their shepherds have led them astray and caused them to roam on the mountains. They wandered over mountains and hills and forgot their own resting place.”(Jeremiah 50:6)
“Israel is a scattered sheep; the lions have driven him away: first the king of Assyria hath devoured him, and last this Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon hath broken his bones.”(Jeremiah 50:17)
Israel =Lost Sheep
Gentiles — The Greek word Ethnos, from where we get the word ethnicity and ethnocentric means ‘nations’. The non-Jews.
“Wherefore remember, that you being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.” (Ephesians 2:11-12)
“It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”(Matthew 15:24)
THERE IS NO GREAT COMMISSION.
There could be no great commission to go out and evangelize the world because Jesus promised the people that the kingdom of God was coming before that very generation died.
Christians will tell us that there is a great commission in Mark 16:15 and as well as Matthew 28:19.
“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” (Matthew 24:34)
Christian C.S Lewis called this the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.
“But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, You shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man come.” (Matthew 10:23)
“And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.“ (Mark 9:1)
“For this, we say unto you by the word of the Lord, then we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord, himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”(1 Thessalonians 4:15-17)
THE SO-CALLED GREAT COMMISSION IS A FORGERY AND A CONTRADICTION.
First point.
Note that in Mark 16:15, and 20 there is no baptismal formula given.
“And he said unto them, Go you into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:15-16)
“And they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.”(Mark 16: 20)
Second Point: Peter and tall tells.
“And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, You went to men uncircumcised, and did eat with them. But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying, I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance, I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me: Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat. But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean has at any time entered into my mouth. But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God has cleansed, do not call common. And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven. And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me. And the Spirit urged me to go with them, do not hesitate. Moreover, these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man’s house: And he showed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell you words, whereby you and all thy house shall be saved. And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Inasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then has God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.” (Acts 11:1-18)
“Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.” (Acts 11:19)
Prima Qur’an Comments
This entire narration of Acts 11:1-18 is sus through and through. Let’s examine why.
First point.
“And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, You went to men uncircumcised, and did eat with them.”
If Jesus gave a great commission to the disciples, why would they be surprised that Gentiles received the word of God? Peter certainly didn’t need to go through some elaborate story to defend himself. He could simply remind them, “Yeah, remember when Jesus said, to go into the world and preach the Gospel to every creature?” And they could have responded, “Oh yeahhhh!”
Second point.
Whereas we also note that, other than this one-off incident, it clearly states others were preaching ‘to none but the Jews only‘
“The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ.”(Acts 10:36)
Peter himself taught:
He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.”(Acts 10:28)
Third point.
How can Peter be stating he had some vision about not eating things unclean when the New Testament itself is replete with the following message:
“You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.” (Acts 15:29)
Fourth point.
“Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost”
Why would Peter recall this and not recall:
“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) Seems rather odd.
Fifth point.
” they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then has God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.”
Again, why would it be a surprise if Jesus did indeed tell them to go into the world and make disciples of all nations?
Jesus never directed his disciples to preach to gentiles.
“And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen and them unto the circumcision.” (Galatians 2:9)
“And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught many people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.”(Acts 11:25)
Christians meant followers of Christ or those who emulate Christ.
Yet, Christians’ don’t keep the sabbath as Jesus did.
They eat pork and Jesus did not.
Jesus prayed with his face to the ground and Christians do not.
“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” (Exodus 20:8)
Other than the Seventh Day Adventist, Christians in general do not observe the sabbath
“But pray that your flight is not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake, those days shall be shortened. Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”(Matthew 24:20-24)
When Jesus is talking about eschatological or end-time events, he is not imagining that the sabbath is broken, rather, it is being kept.
“Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles!” (Acts 13:46)
This is a direct violation of the commission of Jesus to the lost sheep of Israel as stated in Matthew 10:5-6.
“Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5-6)
MATTHEW 28:19 GREAT COMMISSION AND “TRINITY” FORMULAIS AN INTERPOLATION
“And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in the earth. Go you, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:18-20)
“And he said unto them, Go you into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned. And they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.”(Mark 16:15-16 and 20)
However, John has it that the disciples were already baptizing people.
“After these things came to Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea, and there he tarried with them, and baptized.”(John 3:22)
(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)”(John 4:2)
Peter never used the ‘triad’ formula when baptizing.
Peter would baptize in the name of Jesus only.
There is not a single occurrence of the disciples baptizing anyone according to the triad formula!
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”(Acts 2:38)
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)”(Acts 8:16)
“And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.”(Acts 10:48)
“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”(Acts 19:5)
Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea is known as The Father of Church History.
Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2,which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:
“But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go forth and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”
Again, in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read:
What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, “Go forth and make disciples of all nations in my name.”
We know that Luke and John have no great commission formula.
We know that Matthew 28:19 is corrected by Matthew 19:28
“Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matthew 19:28)
*note* not judging the whole of mankind but judging the 12 tribes of Israel!
We know that the people were expecting the imminent coming of Christ Jesus.
We know that Mark 16 had no baptismal formula.
We know that Mark 16:9-20 has been removed from many of the biblical texts as a spurious addition. A footnote in the New International Version informs us:
[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]
We know that we have no records of the disciples using the Triad formula.
We know that we do have New Testament evidence of disciples baptizing ‘in the name of Jesus.
We know that the great Bishop Eusebius quoted from Matthew but without the Triad formula.
We know that in the Gospel, according to John, Jesus’ disciples were already practicing baptism.
We know that it is not feasibly possible to preach the gospel to the whole world when the disciples of Jesus were expecting his imminent return.
We know that the earliest and best manuscripts of Christianity all have Matthew 28:19 containing the Triad formula.
What we do not know is if there are manuscripts or evidence dated prior to the Athanasian creed that contain Matthew 28:19 as having a triad formula.
THE NEW JERUSALEM A GLIMPSE OF THE FUTURE: NO DOOR FOR GENTILES!
“One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues; came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb. “And he carried me away; in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west. The wall of the city had twelve foundations; and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” (Revelation 21:9-14)
Prima Qur’an comments: John sees no gentiles in this picture
Where is the gate for Paul and his gentile following?
“Moses then wrote down everything the Lord had said.
He got up early the next morning and built an altar ;at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel.”(Exodus 24:4)
PAUL IS NOT AN APOSTLEACCORDING TO LUKE:
“May his days be few; may another take his place; of leadership.” (Psalms 109:8)
Luke denies the office of apostle to Paul.
For said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms:
“May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it, ‘and, “‘May another take his place of leadership.’ Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism; to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”(Acts 1:20-22)
Prima Qur’an comment: Paul does not mean that criteria at all!
Luke contrasts Paul with the apostles.
“This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.” (Acts 15:2)
“The apostles and elders met to consider this question.” (Acts 15:6)
“Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers.”(Acts 15:22)
JESUS WILL REBUKE THOSE WHO CLAIM TO BE CHRISTIANS
“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?'”(Matthew 7:21-22 KJV)
Whereas the Revised Standard Version 1881 reads:
None of you 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?’(Matthew 7:21-22 RSV 1881)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:17-18)
Conclusion: The evidence is clear that Jesus was only sent to the children of Israel. He has nothing to do with you or me or anyone else on this Earth. He was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. If Jesus spoke of ‘the elect’ he would be talking about those whom God sent to Jesus as his disciples. There is no evidence that he is talking about some Motley Crue of Christians from all over the world.
The great commission is self-evidently a forgery. The Bible is a book that concerns itself through and through with the history of the Jews and Israel as a whole.
If you are interested in learning about the Blessed Prophet (saw) that was sent to the whole of mankind we would encourage you to read our article here:
“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)
May Allah Guide them to the truth so that they do not burn in hellfire.
“Had We sent down this Quran upon a mountain, you would have certainly seen it humbled and torn apart in awe of Allah. We set forth such comparisons for people, perhaps they may reflect.” (Qur’an 59:21)
﷽
The first thing you should understand dear reader is that this issue on rather or not the Qur’an is created or uncreated was not discussed by the Blessed Prophet (saw) himself.
This issue was also not addressed by the noble companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
This issue came about later. The Umayyads did not restrain the tongue of John of Damascus and it is via his machinations that this debate and intrigue came to the Muslims.
Each side took a position and gave their proofs and justifications.
As regarding making takfir of other Muslims on this issue.
As our teacher, Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui, (Hafidhullah) taught us we do not make takfir of other Muslims on this issue.
His Eminence Shaykh Dr Kahlan B. Nabhan al Kharusi, The Assistant Mufti of Oman, (Hafidhullah) has made our position clear:
What is not in dispute between us and the Sunni Muslims.
The things we both affirm about the Qur’an.
1) That Allah (swt) has never been unable to produce speech from all eternity.
2) That the Qur’an does not originate from any other than Allah (swt).
3) It is his Word, His Revelation and that which He sent down.
4) It was revealed in letters and words.
5) It was revealed to the heart of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
6) It is inimitable in its combinations and meanings. No human being can produce the like thereof.
7) It has been narrated from the Blessed Messenger (saw) through firm tawatur
The Truth about the Qur’an: Created or Uncreated? (This article shows some of the proofs and evidences that each side uses to justify their position.)
This discussion relates to some possible theological conundrums and challenges they can face when holdling the view that the Qur’an is eternal and uncreated.
The position of Sunni/Atheist/Materialist. Allah is worthy of worship based upon auditory perception i.e the ability to be heard.
The Created Qur’an: Yasir Qadhi, Salafis and Atheist.
The position of the Sunni/Neo Platonist. The Monad & the Logos
An uncreated ‘Kun’ by which everything else is created. The ‘kun’ acts as the intermediary between Allah, the transcendant and the material world.
However, the Sunni believe that this uncreated ‘kun’ is not identical to the essence of Allah nor other than Allah’s essence. In our view this is a step away from monotheism and a bridge towards Christology and logos theology.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
“Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” (John 1:3)
Thus for the Ibadi school. The Qur’an is created because Jesus is Not God.
You can see this student of Bin Baz asking Bin Baz that he had the chance to refute Al Khalili(h) and show that he was upon batil (falsehood) so why did he not take it? Bin Baz replied but what if Khalili (h) has strong evidence then what?
The way the following video is framed it paints a picture as if Bin Baz was the wise one in the situation. As if he was saying: “If I debate him he might have a stronger argument and this will cause the misguidance of many people.”
Noble Shaykh Khalid Al Abdali (h)has an excellent 10-part series in Arabic on the Qur’an being created.
Conclusion:
As a Muslim, regardless of whether it is created or not, your duty is to adhere to every single verse in it and believe in it all. We are to continue to ponder upon the Qur’an. To be transformed by it and healed by it.
The Ummah has bigger challenges. Many Muslims today are being led astray. There are many expressions of Islam today, pseudo-groups who follow as Caliphs and Imams, people who do not even know how to recite the Qur’an. It is not even proven that these people know how to recite the Qur’an properly. Yet, people are being duped into following them.
“Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.”(Qur’an 43:3)
﷽
For many, the last 10 days of Ramadan will be spent doing extra prayers, late night vigils, reading of the Qur’an, finding charitable causes, time with family and iktikaaf (overnight) stay in the masjid.
Yet, for others, the last 10 days of Ramadan presents a sort of moral dilemma.
So here we are. Attacking Shaykh Mufti Menk for breaking Iftar with a Jewish Rabbi. Let’s attack Dr. Jonathan Brown for writing the book “Islam & Blackness” because human beings shouldn’t be writing books about corals in the coral reef! You aren’t a coral!
And now attacking Shaykh Hamza Yusuf for the same beliefs that the attackers in reality themselves hold! Namely, their baseless assertion that the Qur’an is eternal and uncreated!
“and not subsisting in Allah” Notice how he says that like it’s a good thing!
ٱللَّهُ لَآ إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ ٱلْحَىُّ ٱلْقَيُّومُ (Qur’an 3:2) This one verse in the Qur’an absolutely demolishes the theology of Ibrahim Ibn Mahmud and anyone else who comes along and tries to tell you that Allah (swt) is a compound unity of attributes subsisting and not identical to the essence of Allah (swt).
Al Hayyu and Al Qayyum is what Allah (swt) is. He tells you in clear language in the plain text (dhahir) apparent text that He (ALLAH) Is the Ever Living Self Existing!
You cannot have a self-existing “attribute” called “al qayyum” subsisting! Authubillah min dhalik! (May Allah protect us from that)
We don’t need the real proponents of innovation and speculative theology like Ibrahim Ibn Mahmud, the Athari, to come along later and say other than what the clear text of the Qur’an says.
If the Qur’an is not from the time of the Salaaf Us Salih (then nothing is)!
Why would a well-informed Christian who believes in the Athanasian creed leave their faith for Islam? What are you people really calling to?
This is what these people are calling to. It is this reason why they will not admit what Allah (swt) has clearly stated in the Qur’an:
“Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)
Give us a single text in the Qur’an where it says it is not made!
Allah (swt) clearly told you that it is!
The reason is that to say that the Qur’an is uncreated is to say that Allah (swt) has an attribute called speech, and his attributes are eternal, and yet they are not identical to his essence, nor other than it. Yet subsisting. So that you end up sounding exactly like this…..
Read it and beware!
Point 5.
“There is little in Berkhof’s explanation of the Trinity that should surprise anyone familiar with the Reformed tradition. He affirms that there is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence, and that in this Being there are three Divine Persons or individual subsistences (87). On this latter point, Berkhof helpfully reminds us that there are not three individuals in the Godhead, alongside of and separate from each other, but rather “personal self-distinctions within the Divine essence” (87). Perhaps this is why theologians in the Reformed tradition tend to talk of order and operations instead of roles and relationships. The first pair of terms suggests self-distinctions, while the second pair suggests separate individuals.”
Taking a look at the video attack upon Shaykh Hamza Yusuf.
Notice the very first thing this video does. Does it go to the Qur’an? No! Does it appeal to the Sunnah? No!
@0:43 minutes they appeal to an Imam. Can you imagine? These people castigate the Shi’a for appealing to the Imams and they do the exact same thing.
After the appeal to their Imam, then the revelation of Allah (swt) states comes next.
“Rather it is an honoured Qur’an in the preserved tablet.”(Qur’an 85:21-22)
Point 1). The Qur’an is in a preserved tablet. Preserved tablet =NOT ALLAH.
Yes, the very preserved tablet that is the revelation of Allah (swt) states:
“Ha-Mim By the Book that makes things clear,-We have made it a Qur’an in Arabic, that you may be able to understand and learn wisdom. And verily, it is in the Mother of the Book, in Our Presence, high in dignity, full of wisdom. Shall We then take away the Message from you and repel (you), for that you are a people transgressing beyond bounds? (Qur’an 43:1-5)
Point 2). The Qur’an has been made in Arabic. ALLAH =NOT MADE.
Point 3). It is in the presence of Allah. It is distinct from Allah (swt). ALLAH = NOT COMPOUND UNITY
Point 4). The Qur’an is in the mother(origin) of the book. ALLAH=HAS NO MOTHER(ORIGIN)
Point 5) The attributes of Allah (swt) are not contained IN a mother book.
“Allah eliminates what He wills or confirms, and with Him is the Mother of the Book.” (Qur’an 13:39)
This Qur’an is in a preserved (maḥfūẓin) tablet.
Point 6) Allah (swt) nor his attributes are in need of preservation, sustenance, upkeep, maintenance, conservation. ALLAH=ETERNAL.
Point 7) The Qur’an is contained in ‘the mother of the book’ (43:4) which is WITH Allah (13:39)
With shows a clear distinction from Allah (swt).
@1:20 we get another verse from the Qur’an.
“And if any one of the ungrateful disbelievers seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.” (Qur’an 9:6)
Let us first deal with some flawed mantiq (logic).
First, it is sufficient to attribute to Allah (swt) the attribute of power without the attribution of speech. Speech is not the opposite of dumbness, such that dumbness is negated by affirming it. The opposite of speech is silence. It does not mean that a non-speaking person is dumb; rather, he is not non-silent.
There also seems to be some confusion from those who call themselves ‘Salafi’, among others, with regard to Allah’s knowledge of it, whereas there is an attempt to equate the attributes of Speaking and Knowledge as being both eternal. Eternal knowledge of a thing does not mean the thing itself is eternal. Otherwise, all of us would be eternal.
We affirm the attribute of “speech” for Allah (swt) as Imam Diya al-Din ‘Abd al-Aziza Thamini (raheemullah), says in his Mu’alim:
“Know that speech is sometimes referred to Allah in the meaning of negating dumbness of Him, and it then is to be understood as an essential attribute in the way of such attributes. And sometimes it is referred to Him in the sense of its being one of His actions, and it is then to be understood as such. So the meaning of His being Speaking, according to the first interpretation, is that He is not dumb; and according to the second that He is a Creator of Speech.”
The Qur’an has never called the speech of Allah (swt) ‘eternal‘. This is pure kalaam!
“The reason why I don’t follow the Ashari creed is because it goes against the clear text of the Qur’an and human nature. People only follow it because they think it makes them look like intellectuals with all those fancy words.” -Abu Humayd
“Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.”(Qur’an 43:3)
This text is quite clear.
IMAM AHMED AN INNOVATOR ACCORDING TO IBN TAYMIYYAH?
Think about it, dear respected Muslim sisters and brothers. The fact that our great scholars actually mused over this is really sad.
“Then, among them are those who say that the ink is apparent in the mushaf but not incarnating, and some say that it is incarnating. In the sayings of some of them is what implies that for the form—the form of the letter and figure – but not for its material substance, which is its ink. This opinion is also invalid. Just as the saying, that anything from the voices of human beings is eternal, is an invalid opinion. It is an opinion put forward by a group from among the followers of Malik, Shafi’i, and Ahmad, the majority of whom reject it. The saying of Ahmad and the majority of his followers rejecting his opinion is well-known. There is no doubt that whoever says that the voices of servants are eternal, he is an innovator and inventor. In the same way as whoever says that this Qur’an is not the word of Allah, he is an innovator and an inventor”
Source: (Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah (Matabi al-Riyad, 1st edition, 12:83-873,83-85)
THE REAL REASON FOR THIS DEBATE/DISCSSION: IS THE QUR’AN ETERNAL or CREATED?
The real reason for this debate is that there are those in the Muslim Ummah that believe Allah (swt) has attributes that are not identical to his essence nor other than it.
TAWHID vs TRINITY.
Tawhid: The belief that Allah is one being that has an undefined/undisclosed number of self-distinctions subsisting with in the divine essence.
Trinity: The Belief that God is one being that has three personal self-distinctions within the Divine essence.
In reality, there is no such debate: Tawhid vs Trinity. The real debate is: In what sense is God a Unity?
In the way that the Athari/Ashari/Maturdi proclaim? Or in the way that Athanasian Christians proclaim?
The real debate between the vast majority of Christians and the vast majority of Muslims (Salafi-Athari/Ashari/Maturdi) should be: In what sense is God a Unity?
May Allah (swt) guide us all to what is beloved to him.
May Allah (swt) guide Shaykh Hamza Yusuf and Ibrahim ibn Mahmud.
If you would like to read more articles concerning Shaykh Hamza Yusuf you maybe interested in:
“Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)
﷽
We never met this beautiful soul, Joshua. May Allah guide him! He is a very intelligent man. This makes sense. We have a feeling that he is keen on Islam. However, just as he is aware that Judaism has various debates on various issues, he is also smart enough to know that the house of Islam, unfortunately, is not one big happy family.
Probing positions and views before deciding to commit to something IS an intelligent thing to do!
This man, Joshua, had Ali Dawah on the ropes when they were discussing the issue of whether Allah (swt) rested. Because, using a consistent approach, Ali Dawah began to realize he had no scope to argue with the forceful position of this young man. To Ali Dawah’s credit, he didn’t force the issue.
Now to this topic: Discussion with Josh (Jewish) | Is the Quran Being Uncreated Against Tawheed?
Abbas: “I don’t think it was its attribute. We, we’ve, I think we’ve answered the question many times that, with the knowledge of Allah, the Qur’an would have existed eternally. See. The actual physical book the mushaaf that was sent down and this is obviously an English translation, but the actual Arabic text when it was written down it is something that once it gets old it’s even burnt or it’s buried or whatever. To dispose of it in a respectful way.”
Abbas: “Burning it is actually not disrespectful in Islam. It’s a valid way of getting rid of an old manuscript that’s damaged and can’t be read, so you would have to have a new copy or whatever and the old one would be respectfully ah sort of ah, you know, gone away with in that way. But the knowledge of Allah, as a Jew, umm I think that you would accept that whatever knowledge Allah has, for example, the Torah itself. Would you say that the Torah itself is something that came into existence or did God have that in his knowledge but bring it into existence when he chose to?”
Josh: “So I believe that the Torah was in fact created. Only God himself is uncreated. But everything within the so-called “knowledge” of God is created at some point.”
Abbas: “Right, so then are you saying that there was a time when God did not know of the Torah?”
Joshua: “No, there was not a “time” before it, because God is above time. So God created time. Rather or not God created the Torah before he created time is not something I know.“
Abbas: “So, basically what were saying is that was there ever a moment when God did not know of the Torah?”
Joshua.” In a sense, yes. Prior to the creation of the Torah, there could be no knowledge of the Torah.”
Abbas: “So there was a moment when God had no knowledge of the Torah. (Now there is a moment there where the video does a flash sequence. I do not know if that means the video was edited or that is just a video effect.)”
Joshua: “Yes.”
Hamza: “So you don’t believe God has all full knowledge.”
Joshua, “No because, because knowledge we believe is an attribute of God. God’s omniscience is an attribute of him. Therefore, he created his own omniscience.”
Abbas: “Josh, is that a mainstream Jewish belief? In terms of actual rabbinical grounding. That the Torah, at one point God did not actually know what he was going to say. What God was going to give to Moses.”
Hamza (interrupts): “Josh, do you believe that God knows the future?”
Josh: “Yes, because there is no future when it comes to God. Cause for God all time, past, present and future” (could make out due to Hamza speaking over).
Hamza: “So then God knows what the Torah isn’t it always?”
(The team got Josh to admit they had a point that there could be no ‘before’ as he (Joshua) just admitted that past/present/future….)
Imran: (The best listener out of the bunch, in our opinion) He pivots back to the original question: “Your question was really an interesting one because you, you raised this as a question about Tawhid. And you said that this is uh, it requires an explanation having the Qur’an as an uncreated statement that the Qur’an is uncreated, and then you have Allah, who is eternal. Does it affect Tawhid in any way? That was really underlying thing that I think you were trying to get to. So I am going to give you an analogy. Now, obviously, all analogies are imperfect, and we can’t perfect analogies, particularly when it comes to the Creator. But I am gonna try and give an analogy to drawn on and explain. So you’re speaking, right Josh?”
Josh: “Yes.”
Imran: “Can your speech exist without you?” (Can you exist without speaking)
Josh: “I don’t know. Can my speech. Theoretically there could be my speech without me. I suppose. I’m not sure though.”
Imran: “I would say that that’s clearly, that clearly the answer to that question is No. Um, I don’t know how your thinking…if you did not exist, could your speech exist?”
Josh: “Depends. If my speech has to, if there’s prerequisite to the existence of my speech is the existence of myself.”
Imran: “Sorry, sorry to interrupt you. Your thinking. I don’t understand your thinking process. What you’re doing is your taking this speech and your giving it attributes. Now we agreed that speech is an attribute of the Creator. We’ve agreed this. Like just as speech manifests from you. Now the question is do the attributes exist on their own or not?”
Joshua: “With regard to attributes of myself or attributes of God?”
Imran: “So the analogy is to get you to think about the Creator. I am trying to use yourself as an example just to try and give that. So, for example is: Can your speech exist without you?”
Joshua: “So if we (God forbid) leave God out of this picture for this particular analogy. Um, otherwise it’s going to get far too complicated. Then for sure, then you would be right that my speech could not exist without me.”
Imran: “So now I’m going to say now let’s talk about the Creator. Now I’m going to say the attributes of the Creator can’t exist without the Creator.”
Joshua: “Yes, that’s true.”
Imran: “Yup, so now we don’t have a conflation between were not comparing two different things. The Qur’an is the speech of Allah. It’s an attribute you understand? So now the question comes. When we’re talking about (holds up the Qur’an) the text, do we/are we referring to that attribute or not? So there’s two things and now we have to differentiate this. The attribute we’ve agreed is eternal. Why? Because the Creator is eternal, the attribute is eternal. Therefore, the Qur’an is uncreated and eternal. So now that’s a dealt with thing. This is a (holding up the Qur’an) a creation, like somebody has put these pages together, written the pages and the ink down. This (holding up the Qur’an) is not that attribute.”
Joshua: “I understand the difference between the written Qur’an and the spoken Qur’an that..” (unintelligible as Imran talked over him.)
Imran: “So that means coming to the concept of Tawhid. It doesn’t impact that at all. Another example would be: Creation. One of the attributes of God is that he is the Creator. Now, (we agree with this yeah?) “
Joshua: “Yes.”
Imran: “So the creative command is not separate from the creator in any sense, right?”
Joshua: “I would disagree with that because, prior to because prior to having created anything, how can God be considered to be a Creator? In order to be a Creator you need to have a creation.”
Imran: “So o.k that’s interesting, so I think that you sorry Hamza, you wanna…”
Hamza: “You don’t need to create to have the attribute of a creator you just need to create to demonstrate the attribute.“
Joshua: “But that depends on how we understand what the attribute is. Um so, let me just think about how to explain.”
Hamza: (getting visibly impatient) “Oh o.k before Allah, before God created the universe, you believe God created the universe?”
Joshua: “Yes.”
Hamza: “Did he have the attribute of Creator?”
Joshua: “Before he created anything he did not….”
Hamza: “Did he have the attribute of Creator?”
Joshua: “No.”
Hamza: (Surprised) “No!? How did he create than?”
Imran: “O.K. Let’s change the word for a moment, Josh. Let’s make the word ability.”
Joshua: “Ability? o.k. Did God have the ability to create? Yes.”
Imran: “O.K so that’s the attribute.”
Hamza: “That’s the attribute.”
Joshua: “Oh that’s what you mean when you say attributes.”
Hamza: “The Creation is the manifestation of the attribute. Evidence of the attribute if you like.”
Joshua: “It’s the manifestation of ‘Ah’..” (light bulb moment).
Comments:
Over all, that was a very good exchange. In reality, the question Joshua poses is two-fold in nature.
Is the Qur’an created or eternal?
If it is created or eternal, does this pose a problem for the doctrine of Tawhid?
The first argument brought by Abbas is not a good argument.
The eternity of knowledge does not imply the eternity of the known. Otherwise, all things that have come into being would be eternal! Imagine saying, because Allah (swt) has eternal knowledge about Christ Jesus, that Christ Jesus would be eternal! Christians would just love that!
Imran seemed the more learned of the three, at least in terms of Sunni theology. He got straight to the point. However, Imran did a very clever cart before the horse when he asked:
Can your speech exist without you? Actually, we could ask: (Can you exist without speaking?)
The answer to that is yes. You can exist without speaking.
We affirm the attribute of “speech” for Allah (swt) as Imam Diya al-Din ‘Abd al-Aziza Thamini (raheemullah), says in his Mu’alim:
“Know that speech is sometimes referred to Allah in the meaning of negating dumbness of Him, and it then is to be understood as an essential attribute in the way of such attributes. And sometimes it is referred to Him in the sense of its being one of His actions, and it is then to be understood as such. So the meaning of His being Speaking, according to the first interpretation, is that He is not dumb; and according to the second that He is a Creator of Speech.”
Now this is where it gets a bit tricky for Sunni theology.
Imran: “So the creative command is not separate from the creator in any sense, right?”
Response: What do you actually mean by the creator and his attributes? Because the Sunni theological position is that the attributes of Allah (swt) are not equal to Allah (swt) nor other than his essence!
This is a very, very BIG problem for Sunni theology.
Questions for the Athari/Salafi school.
So, if the attributes are not identical to the essence or other than the essence, what are they?
Can you prove your claims that the attributes are not identical to the essence using kitab wa sunnah?
Using the Qur’an and the Sunnah?
Will you need to rely upon kalam?
Actually, a VERY GOOD QUESTION FOR ANY SUNNI MUSLIM IS:
‘What do you mean when you say God is one?’
This may come as a surprise to the readers. They may say the being is one, but can they really, since they also have these attributes that have a quasi/pseudo-being status, in that they are not equal to the being nor other than it?
The second point from Imran
Imran: “So the creative command is not separate from the creator in any sense, right?”
“And the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: Allah gives you glad tidings of (a son whose name is) John, (who comes) to confirm A WORD (bikalimatin) from Allah lordly, chaste, a prophet of the righteous. (Qur’an 3:39)
Are we sure that we want to say that Jesus (A WORD) from Allah is not separate from the Creator?
On what consistent basis is Jesus Allah’s word and his spirit and yet be created when the Qur’an is Allah’s word and is eternal and uncreated? On what consistent basis is the claim made?
We are quite certain that Christians are going to be asking themselves why should I leave Christianity, which holds (even in the lesser Arian Christology) that Christ Jesus is a word emanating from the divine nature but sharing the divine nature only to embrace a faith that tells me that Christ Jesus is a word emanating from the divine being but not separate from the divine being?
“His are the creation and the command.” (Qur’an 7:54)
This is answered by the context itself:
Indeed, your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and earth in six days and then established Himself above the Throne. He covers the night with the day, [another night] chasing it rapidly; and [He created] the sun, the moon, and the stars, subjected by His command. Unquestionably, His is the creation and the command; blessed is Allah, Lord of the worlds. (Qur’an 7:54)
The most that this verse tells us is that, just as Allah (swt) is alone in bringing the universe out of non-being (into being), in the same way, He is alone in the management of it. He has no partner in its creation and in its management. None other than Him has anything of the creation and management. Rather, to HIM alone belong the creation and the command. The meaning here, clearly, is management. And there is nothing in that which even remotely points either to the eternity of the Qur’an or to its contingency.
Examples:
“Maintain with care the [obligatory] prayers and [in particular] the middle prayer and stand before Allah, devoutly obedient.” (Qur’an 2:238)
The middle prayer is not (separated) out of the genus of prayers, the guarding of which has been commanded.
“Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael – then indeed, Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers. (Qur’an 2:98)
No one says that Gabriel and Michael are separated out of the genus of angels. The difference between them is relative.
“Indeed, Allah orders justice and good conduct and giving to relatives and forbids immorality and bad conduct and oppression. He admonishes you that perhaps you will be reminded.” (Qur’an 16:90)
No intelligent person will argue about justice being the doing of good, and the doing of good being justice.
The command (amr) of Allah (swt) has been mentioned jointly with what denotes its creation in many places.
“And [remember, O Muhammed], 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 feared 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 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)
“[Remember] when you were on the near side of the valley, and they were on the farther side, and the caravan was lower [in position] than you. If you had made an appointment [to meet], you would have missed the appointment. But [it was] so that Allah might accomplish a matter already destined – that those who perished [through disbelief] would perish upon evidence and those who lived [in faith] would live upon evidence; and indeed, Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” (Qur’an 8:42)
“There is not to be upon the Prophet any discomfort concerning that which Allah has imposed upon him. [This is] the established way of Allah with those [prophets] who have passed on before. And ever is the command of Allah a destiny decreed.” (Qur’an 33:38)
“He arranges [each] matter from the heaven to the earth; then it will ascend to Him in a Day, the extent of which is a thousand years of those which you count.” (Qur’an 32:5)
“Indeed, all things We created with predestination And Our command is but one, like a glance of the eye.” (Qur’an 54:49-50)
“Do the disbelievers await [anything] except that the angels should come to them or there comes the command of your Lord? Thus did those do before them. And Allah wronged them not, but they had been wronging themselves.” (Qur’an 16:33)
All of those examples should be more than sufficient to show our response!
May Allah (swt) open the eyes of the Muslim ummah. May Allah (swt) open the heart of Joshua and bring him to the right way.
If you would like to see more articles on the discussion of the Qur’an, is it created or uncreated? You may wish to see the following:
“Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)
﷽
Mohamed Hijab, who is a known Muslim speaker based in the United Kingdom, has recently put forward some excellent arguments against the idea of the Qur’an being eternal and uncreated (unbeknownst to him).
Now, to be fair, we want to say from the outset that Mohamed Hijab (as far as we know) believes that the Qur’an is eternal and uncreated.
However, it doesn’t seem that he has pondered the implications of his kalaam argument on the subject of the Qur’an being makhluq (created).
Listen carefully to the exchange between Marwan and Mohamed Hijab
The contingency argument.
@1:28:36 listen to Marwan’s question about pantheism and contingency argument.
@1:30:18 Mohamed Hijab gives his reply listen carefully.
“This is a book, and it’s made out of parts and the parts are the pages of the book right. Correct? So these are the pages of the book. I dunno what book. ‘Jewish historical society of England’ …..This is a book, right, and this is the whole of the book, correct? And it’s made out of parts, correct? Now if I pick a part out. Now if I take all parts out of this book, does it remain as a book? If the parts are taken out, then the whole thing is taken out. If that’s conceivable that parts taken out the whole thing is taken out than there is no way that this thing that I’m talking about is necessary and independent. Because necessary and independent means it’s always there and it can never be any other way. It’s a simple as that. You said, well, if it’s inter-dependent, anything which is inter-dependent by definition is dependent because what does the word inter-dependent mean? Interdependent means things which rely upon each other.So, if in order for this book to exist, there’s an inter-dependence or each page relies upon the existence of other pages in this book in order to exist. Then what we’re saying is this thing is dependent, because everything interdependent is, by definition dependent. What is dependence? Something which relies upon something else for its existence. What is inter-dependence? Something which relies upon something else in order to exist. So, in many ways, what you’re saying is, if we admit that it’s dependent than khalas (finished), it cannot be dependent and necessary at the same time.”
@1:33:16 “How do we describe the kul here? How do we describe the whole of this book? How do we describe the whole of this book? We describe it through its parts, right? Now if I say I just dissembled all its parts, and it’s maybe what 3-400 pages, and I’ve scattered them around. They still exist, but they exist in a different form. Now what I’m saying is the fact that I can re-arrange them like this I can you see this hundred, I dunno, let me see 208 pages of this book, yeah. If I take the 232 pages and make page 1 and page 232 and make it like munaqis (opposite), so instead of 1,2,3,4,5 it’s 232, 231, etc., etc. I’ve re-arranged it. The fact that now I can rearrange this book means there is nothing necessary about the arrangement and the form of this book. There is nothing necessary about it at all.”
@1:34:27 “The book as it is the way in which the book is now from 1 to 232, the way in which the book is like that the form the sura the shaqil the hakel -what ever word you want to use, the form of the book as it is now can be re-arranged. Now let me give you an example because I feel, I feel like the issue here is we don’t know the difference between contingency in this necessity. Necessity: 2 +2=4. 2+2=4. Is there any way 2+2=4 can be arranged any other way. Can it re-arrange in any other way? Can 2+2=anything other than 4? Which means its necessary. So its impossible to re-arrange 2+2 to equal anything other than 4. It’s eternally that way, it’s necessarily that way and it will continue being that way. It cannot be any other way. Now this is not the same with the arrangement of the parts of this book. The arrangement of the parts of this book can be other ways. This book itself can be another way. Instead of this colour; which I will describe as beige I dunno maybe I’m colour blind. It could have been blue. I can actually paint it right now. I can make it blue. I can , you want me to do? It looks like a historic book I dun want to ruin it. But I can change this book. There is nothing necessary about this book. Now you might say well, if we define necessity as something susceptibility, destructibility and generation. Yeah? And then in the closed system of the universe energy cannot be destroyed. Cannot be destroyed and therefore the atoms will take another form. I’m saying. I am not defining. I’m not defining contingency in only that way. I’m defining contingency in three ways. Number 1. Something that can be any other way. Number one yeah? Number 2. Something susceptibility to destruction and generation destruction yeah? And number 3. Something which relies upon something else for its existence. Now even if you argued that well this cannot be really destroyed because it’s atoms will take other form. I’m saying its still not necessary because it can be arranged in another way. The parts of this whole can be arranged in a way which is currently not arranged. It can be a way which is currently not/is. So which means that it, it meets the criterion of contingency; because it can be another way.”
@1:37:24 “You are confusing eternality and necessity. O.K? It’s conceivable that something can be eternal and not necessary. It’s conceivable how so? Because something can be eternal but rely upon something necessary. And that’s why the ‘ulemah of Islam they differentiated between what is referred to as wajibun an nafsi and wajibun al ghayri which is necessary for its own sake and necessary or in and of itself and necessary because of something else. So for example if I were to say. You have a sun. Let’s say the sun is necessary. The sun yani. Shams yeah? And it’s rays are contingent based-dependent upon the sun. The fact that the rays exist and they are contingent on the sun doesn’t’ mean that just because they are both eternal. The fact that the rays exist and are contingent on the sun doesn’t’ mean that the rays are necessary just because their eternal because they are dependent upon something which is necessary in this case, the sun or the eternal. You get it?
@1:38:37 “Yeah that’s his Ibn Cena beliefs. Yeah well Islamic refutation of the universe being eternal is clearly against the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Al Ghazali had this kind of refutation if you wanna.”
Marwan ask about the attributes of Allah (swt).
@1:39:00 “We affirm all the attributes of God through these kind of argumentations. That is why, there is a point where you need like the Rahma of Allah. The fact that he is ghafu and afuw and raheem and all that stuff. That needs to be affirmed through revelation.”
Marwan ask are these attributes necessary or contingent?
@1:39:19 ‘Yeah all attributes of Allah are necessary.” @1:40:25 “We don’t use the word dependent it’s being controlled by the irada (intention) of Allah. By the will of God. So the verb all the attributes of God are controlled by the will of God. If Allah wants to speak yeah? If Allah wants to speak he wills that and he does that.”
Marwan so they are contingent upon his will?
Listen to how uncomfortable is the response of Mohamed Hijab. The sudden shift. Also notice that Mohamed Hijab does not affirm that Allah is speaking, or is speaking eternally. He attributes the speaking to his will! Al hamdulillah! Thank you!
@1:40:44 “We don’t need to use the word contingent. They are controlled by his will.“
I believe at this point Marwan doesn’t really seem to buy it. A quick glance of the ideas upward and simply responds . ‘O.K’
The arguments brought by Mohamed Hijab absolutely decimate the idea that the Qur’an is uncreated.
Its message is dependent upon asbaab an nuzul (occasion of revelation), which conceivably could have been different. According to our brothers from the Sunni denomination, it has text that has been abrogated and that is dependent upon what abrogates and what is abrogated. It is composed of letters and words and sentences that are dependent upon structure to have a coherent meaning. It’s conceivable that the Ahruf /Qir’aat of the Qur’an could be more or less than what they are. It is conceivable that the Qur’an could have been revealed in a language other than Arabic. It is conceivable that the Qur’an itself cannot be necessary, because it is conceivable that Allah (swt) could have had the Torah or any other revelation completely intact and reach us until this very day.
In the words of Fakhr al-Din Al-Razi:
“The impossibility of a word which is composed of letters and sounds being eternal is self-evident to the mind for two reasons:
The first is that a word cannot be a word unless its letters are sequential. The letter uttered before the last that is uttered is originated, and if something’s being originated is affirmed, its eternity is then impossible. So, for the letter following the end of the first, there is no doubt that it originated.
The second is that, if those letters from which the word is composed occurred in one go, the word cannot be. A word composed of three letters can occur in any one of six combinations. If the letters occurred altogether, the words occurring in some of those combinations would not be better than they are occurring in any of the rest. Alternatively, if the letters occurred in succession, then the word is originated.”
Source: (Al-Tafsir al-kabir (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Illmiyyah, 2nd edition, 1:P20.)
Fakhr al-Din took fellow Sunni Muslims of the Hanbali school to task when he says,
“These people are so low as to not deserve mention among the group of the learned. It happened one day that I said to one of them: “If Allah spoke these, then either He spoke them in one go, or in succession. The first is void because the speaking of all these letters in one go will not convey an orderly composition which is a combination in sequence. It necessarily follows that this composition, combined with these successive letters, cannot by themselves be Allah’s speech. The second is void, because if Allah spoke them in succession, then it would be originated.’ When the man heard this statement of mine, he said: ‘It is obligatory for us to affirm and pass on’, i.e., we affirm that the Qur’an is eternal and pass by this statement that we have heard. At that point, I wonder greatly at the safety of this speaker.”
“Indeed, We have made it (ja’alnahu) an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)
﷽
This video was brought to our attention. Here we have our Muslim sister asking Mohamed Hijab about the age-old question about whether Allah’s words (speech) is created.
So what we are going to do is to let you listen to the exchange. We have also transcribed the exchange between Mohamed Hijab and the questioner (referenced as ‘Muslim sister’.) We will then provide our commentary and thoughts on the exchange.
Muslim sister:
“About like the Qur’an being like there, you know the issue about it being created and not created, about how there was a big debate in the past, so I don’t exactly understand like those two sides, like what do people mean when they say it’s created and what do they mean when they say it’s not created because I don’t think either side actually meant that created in terms of written by people so like how yeah so what do they even mean like how do you make sense of it.”
Mohamed Hijab:
“The Muʿtazilah believed that it was was created, it was makhluq. That Allah created the Qur’an. The words were created. They were not…whereas the Ahl Sunnah position is that the words are not created and that the words are exactly are uh, they are a subset of an attribute of Allah (swt) which is speech. So like I’m speaking to you right now, I have the ability to speak, and my speech is a subset of my ability to speak in my capacity to speak. Likewise, Allah (swt) speech is not created, it’s not manufactured. It’s a subset of one of his attributes. So the Muʿtazilah believed that it was created in the same way as human beings are created, or the universe was created. And Ahl Sunnah believed that’s not the case.”
The sister was asked: “Does that make sense?”
Muslim sister:
“Um, I mean, like it just don’t sound like I guess I cannot fully comprehend in (??) not in terms of how it’s possible but rather like, um, are the words kind of emitted at some point and does that omission all…” (interrupted by Mohamed Hijab)
Mohamed Hijab: “Yeah, omission …all right, look, so does Allah (swt) does he umm create?”
Muslim sister: “Yup”
Mohamed Hijab: “Yup.” So he creates. Allah (swt) does he hear all things?
Muslim sister: “Yeah.”
Mohamed Hijab: “Does he see all things?”
Muslim sister: “Yeah.”
Mohamed Hijab: “Yeah? Right, now all of those things are they created? Like did Allah create-Did Allah create an ability for himself to hear?”
Muslim sister: “Oh I see. So, when you say the words are not created like the Qur’an is not created you mean the ability to speak was not created, yeah?”
Mohamed Hijab:
“That Allah’s ability to speak is not created and that the words themselves are not created. They are uh omitted as you mentioned from Allah (swt) in a way that suits his majesty. Which is nothing like the khalq (the creation). But they are not created it’s like-just like Allah (swt) does not create his ability to hear, and he does not create his ability to see and thus, intrinsically, it’s a part its its its an aspect of what he is, not a part. An aspect of what he is. Then, in that case, the same can be said about kalam about speech. That he is not created.”
Muslim sister:
“But what if, like a single verse or like um like um, you know the message itself it’s dependent is it like of um depending on the rule of Allah? Or is it kind it’s not like part of the essence, right? It’s not like unnessary-it was I don’t know how..”
Mohamed Hijab:
“Yeah, I got you, I got you. So the sifat of Allah (swt) are broken down into two. There’s the attributes which are intrinsic and necessary. Actually all of Allah’s attributes are necessary, yeah? But there’s those which are intrinsic. They’re called Al-Sifāt Dhātiyyah. They’re the intrinsic attributes. So, for example that Allah is pre-eternal that he is post-eternal. That he is All-Powerful, that he has all knowledge all of that is meant Sifat Allah (swt) Dhātiyyah, or the intrinsic attributes of Allah. And then you have the will of Allah (swt) Okay? The Will of Allah. And the Will is Allah’s ability to make decisions okay?”
Muslim sister: “okay”.
Mohamed Hijab:
“And then then you have another set of sifat or attributes of Allah called Sifat Al Ikhtiyariyah or Sifāt Fi’liyyah -which are the verbal attributes -now verbal attributes refer to that which Allah does and that which Allah does it is linked to Allah’s will. So, when Allah decides something -the verbal attributes are then activated. Okay? As a result of whatever he wills. So some of the uh some of the examples of those is like speech. Allah wills to speak. He shall speak. If he wills not to he will not. If Allah wills to create he will create. If he wills not to he will not. So, the sifat, the attributes which are Sifat al filiyyaha they are connected to the will of Allah (swt)
Prima Qur’an commentary:
The first point to keep in mind is that the Qur’an and Sunnah are not quoted to the respected Muslim sister. The issue over whether the Qur’an was created or not created did not come up during the time of the companions. They contended themselves with Allah (swt) is uncreated and everything other than Allah (swt) is created. If only the Muslims were contented with this.
In Mohamed Hijab’s initial response he says:
“So like I’m speaking to you right now I have the ability to speak and my speech is a subset of my ability to speak in my capacity to speak. Likewise Allah (swt) speech is not created it’s not manufactured.”
Allah (swt) says:
There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing” [Qur’an 42:11].
So, whenever you get involved in tashbih (comparing Allah to his creation) like Mohamed Hijab does, you run into problems. His comparison breaks down because he (Mohamed Hijab) is a created being. His speech is created. He has the ability to speak, but he had not been speaking before he spoke. He produced a speech on the occasion of it. Allah (swt) could destroy Mohamed Hijab and the entirety of his existence, including his speech.
In the second reply to the Muslim sister Mohamed Hijab says:
“But they are not created it’s like-just like Allah (swt) does not create his ability to hear and he does not create his ability to see and thus intrinsically it’s a part its its its an aspect of what he is, not a part.“
People like Mohamed Hijab and the bulk of Sunni Muslims who come across as confused about the issue. Often times they also set up traps that are meant less to have meaningful discussion and more often to win.
Remember Mohamed Hijab said: “Allah wills to speak. He shall speak. If he wills not to he will not.“
He doesn’t create his ability to hear. We would agree.
He doesn’t create his ability to see. We would agree.
He doesn’t create his ability to speak. We would agree.
—————————————————————————————————
He doesn’t create his ability to hear. Agreed.
He doesn’t create his ability to see. Agreed.
He doesn’t create his ability to create. Agreed.
He doesn’t create his ability to speak. Agreed.
Now we ask:
Is that which he sees created? They say, “Yes”.
Is that which he hears created? They say, “Yes”.
Is that which he speaks created? They are silent.
You see they don’t like the way the question is framed. It is meant as a trap. A possible response to this could very well be: Is that which he speaks to created? They would say yes.
But that wasn’t the question. So you can see they evaded the question. Or they will reply to Is that which he speaks created? They can simply reply: “No.”
Or they could pretend to lay a trap for us:
Is his hearing created? We say, “No.”
Is his seeing created? We say, “No.”
Is his speaking created? We say, “Yes!”
So this is the problem with approaching the Creator using tashbih. Rather, it has to be decided by the decisive text of the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
Now the last two paragraphs even had us puzzled because we began to say among ourselves. How is it that Sunni Muslims like Mohamed Hijab differ with us about this? Because he says:
“There’s the attributes which are intrinsic and necessary, actually all of Allah’s attributes are necessary yeah? But there’s those which are intrinsic they’re called Al-Sifāt Dhātiyyah. They’re the intrinsic attributes.“
Actually, we are glad Mohamed Hijab caught himself because we were wondering what attributes of Allah (swt) he thought were redundant or unnecessary because that creates a whole host of problems. Anyway, he says there are attributes which are intrinsic and necessary. We (Ibadi) agree.
Mohamed Hijab says:
“And than then you have another set of sifat or attributes of Allah called Sifat Al Ikhtiyariyah or Sifāt Fi’liyyah -which are the verbal attributes.”
“So some of the uh some of the examples of those is like speech Allah wills to speak he shall speak if he wills not to he will not. If Allah wills to create he will create. If he wills not to he will not.”
Excellent! So, if Allah (swt) wants to speak, he will speak. If he wants to create, he will create. Just as what he creates is not eternal, neither is that which he speaks. He has the ability to do both. This is exactly the position of The Ibadi School. (The People of Truth and Straightness.)
However, you will find that, unfortunately, some of Mohamed Hijab’s cohorts have put the attribute of speech into two categories: both Sifat Dhatiyyah & Sifat Fi’liyyah and that is what our article spoke about as well.
May Allah (swt) bless Mohamed Hijab in his efforts for the daw’ah and attempting his level best to explain an issue to our sister that has unfortunately and unnecessarily split the Ummah.
Rather, it has to be decided by the decisive text of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. In the article provided you will see that the textual evidence of our position is in the Qur’an and the Sunnah, starting off with a sahih (sound) hadith in which a well-known companion mentioned verses of the Qur’an is created. This is followed by the clear verse of the Qur’an and other textual proofs.
Both Sifat Dhatiyyah & Sifat Fi’liyyah and that is what our article spoke about as well. This issue was neither discussed by the Blessed Messenger (saw) discussed this issue nor his noble companions.
Unfortunately, some people form theological concepts and impose this upon the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Whereas our methodology is to be guided by the explicit text when available.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt). May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah!
“Have the unbelievers not ever considered that the heavens and the earth were one piece and that We tore them apart from one another. From water, We have MADE/CREATED all living things. Will they then have no faith?” (Qur’an 21:30)
﷽
The Arabic text above says, “waja’alna” (We have created)
When a person makes something, he/she does it out of other materials made by Allah. For example, a carpenter who makes a table does not create it but he/she merely assembles and joins pieces of wood with nails and glue together.
In other words, he/she has made a table out of materials created by Allah. But when Allah (swt) makes something he makes it out of nothing or out of other materials he has created out of nothing.
“And it is He who has created man from water” (Qur’an 25:54)
The Arabic text above says, “khalaqa” (created). Allah (swt) has used in Qur’an 25:54 and Qur’an 21:30 two different Arabic terms, yet both of these words are synonymous in what they convey.
“It is He who created you from one soul and created from it its mate so that he might dwell in security with her.” (Qur’an 7:189)
In the above text, the first term used is “khalaqakum” (created) and the second term “ja’ala” (created). Again, this shows the interchangeable nature of these two terms.
“Oh, mankind! Fear your Lord, who created you from a single person and created, out of him, his wife.” (Qur’an 4:1)
The above Arabic text is “khalaqakum” (created) and wa “khalaqa”(created). Allah (swt) used the same word twice. Allah (swt) did not use the word “ja’ala” (created) as he did in Qur’an 7:189. This once more shows that the two words convey the same meaning.
“Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)
The Arabic term that is used here is “ja’alnahu” (made/created)
“Truly I am going to create man from clay” (Qur’an 38:71)
The Arabic term here is “khaliqun” (create)
Now let us look at Qur’an 38:72
The underlying words in verse 72 have, however, been given contradictory interpretations.
Professor Abdullah Yusuf Ali has translated them as: “And I breathed unto him of my spirit.”
So when I have fashioned him and breathed into him (his) soul created by Me, then you fall down prostrate to him.”
The implication of the first translation is that Allah (swt) has given part of His spirit, so man is the essence of Allah.
This sounds very much like those who say the Qur’an is the essence of Allah.
In the second translation by Dr. Al Hilali and Dr. Khan, it means that Allah created man’s soul and then breathed it into him. This interpretation agrees with those who say that the Qur’an is created.
This is also the way the Sahih International translates it this way: “So when I have proportioned him and breathed into him of My [created] soul, then fall down to him in prostration.” (Qur’an 38:72)
The three translations (Abdullah Yusuf Ali & Dr. Al Hilali /Dr. Khan and Sahih International are all three contradictory and have both been endorsed by the religious institutions in Saudi Arabia.
Fortunately for us, neither of the translators were Ibadi or the so-called, “Khariji” and thus, no sectarian uproar in the Islamic World!!
Unfortunately, this particular issue is complicated by the fact that there is quite a bit of obfuscation on behalf of our brothers from ‘Ahl Sunnah’ and that is because they do not want to tell us if they regard the attributes of Allah (swt) as being identical with the essence of Allah (swt) or being outside the essence of Allah (swt).
If you would like to learn more about the Qur’an being a creation of Allah (swt), you may wish to read the following:
“He only orders you to evil and immorality and to say about Allah what you do not know. And when it is said to them, “Follow what Allah has revealed,” they say, “Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing.” Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided?” (Qur’an 2:169-170)
﷽
When it comes to the issue of the Qur’an being created and the topic of the attributes of Allah (swt), we could put this into four views. This brief entry will show where these four denominations have overlapping agreement and/or disagreement.
A. There are four denominations in this subject.
Ibadi.
Muutazila.
Ahl Sunnah.
Jahmia.
Here are the points.
Ibadi & Mutazila say: The attributes of Allah (swt) are nothing other than Allah (swt)
Ahl Sunnah & Jahmia say: The attributes of Allah (swt) are other things with/than Allah (swt).
Ahl Sunnah & Jahmia say: Qur’an is one of the attributes of Allah (swt).
Ibadi & Mutzalia say: Qur’an is not an attribute of Allah (swt).
Jahmia say: Attributes of Allah are created by Allah (swt).
Ahl Sunnah say: All attributes of Allah aren’t created by Allah (swt).
We (The Ibadi) say there is evidence to prove that the Qur’an is created by Allah (swt).
For the Jahmia, the proof that the Qur’an is created by Allah (swt) is that the Qur’an is one of the attributes of Allah (swt). For them, all the attributes of Allah (swt) are created by Allah (swt).
Ibadi, Mutazalia & Ahl Sunnah all say anyone who believes that the attributes of Allah is created are kaafir. (disbelievers of shirk)
We, the Ibadi, say: The Qur’an is a word of Allah and created by Allah, but we don’t say the Qur’an is an attribute of Allah (swt).
“Our belief is upon Haqq and the belief of the Jahmia is upon kufr and batil.” -Shaykh Hamed Hafidh
We want to thank our teacher Shaykh Hamed Hafidh As Sawafi (hafidullah) for this explanation.
Prima Quran 