Tag Archives: bible

June 15, 2026 · 7:33 am

The so called ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is a Protestant attack upon the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian and Roman Catholic Churches.

“The Jews and Christians each claim that none will enter Paradise except those of their own faith. These are their desires. Reply, “Produce your proof if what you say is true.” (Qur’an 2:111)

﷽ 

This above verse encapsulates the Qur’anic approach to interfaith debate, which is not limited to textual proofs, but reasoned proof. This is sensible considering huge swathes of the population were illiterate. Illiteracy does not mean one could not reason or one could not think.

What is striking and deeply ironic is that the ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is not merely a Protestant argument against Islam. It is a veiled attack on traditional Christianity itself. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Christians who adopt this argument are unwittingly fighting on Protestant ground, using Protestant weapons, against their own ecclesial principles.

The “Islamic Dilemma” is a very specific form of argument. It is a logical, text-based trap: if it is assumed that the Qur’an says the Bible is true, and the Bible contraditcts Islam, then Islam is false. However, If the Bible is unreliable and corrupted, then it is assumed that Islam is still false because of the claim that the Qur’an repeatedly affirms the divine authority, inspiration, and preservation of the very same scriptures.

The trap is clever, but it rests on a fatal assumption: that the Qur’an is referring to the Protestant canon, and that it commands the laity to consult it directly. Neither assumption is true.

For the Protestant this is a debate about the accuracy and authority of written texts.

For a Catholic, Orthodox, or Assyrian Christian, this framing is a false start as well as a betrayal of their own tradition. The ‘dilemma’ demands that the Bible be treated the way Protestants imagine Muslims treat the Qur’an: as a direct, self-interpreting, accessible text for the laity. Yet this is a caricature of both traditions.

Muslims have always had direct access to the Qur’an through recitation and prayer. It is memorized, recited, and heard. Yet like Christians before the Reformation, they have never approached it as a text for private interpretation. The Shi’i have their Imams; the Sunni and Ibadi have their scholars and jurists. The Church, not the text, is the pillar of truth for traditional Christians. And the community of scholars, not the individual, is the pillar of interpretation for Muslims. Both traditions are built on communal, mediated authority. Only Protestantism is built on the chaos of the individual.

The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is demonstrably historically fallacious.

  1. It posits that Christians in the 7th century engaged with their scriptures rather than defer to Church authority.
  2. It posits that Muslims in the 7th century accept books that Protestants themselves today do not accept.
  3. It posits that Muslims and Christians engaged in cross referencing Bible canons with the Qur’an.
  4. It posits that people in the 7th century have a high degree of literacy.
  5. It posits that Bible canons were widely availabe to every Christian household.

The Qur’an engages communities and their learned.

“We did not send before you except as men to whom We revealed. Ask the People of the Reminder if you do not know.” (Qur’an 16:43)

You can read various Tafsir here:

https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/16.43

Al Wahidi says:

(And We sent not (as Our messengers) before thee other than men whom We inspired…) [16:43]. This verse was revealed about the idolaters of Mecca who denied the prophethood of Muhammed, Allah bless him and give him peace. They said: “Allah is too great to have a human being as His messenger; could He not have sent an angel?”

Source: (https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/16.43)

Notice that the people are being told to ask the people. They are not being told to consult the gospel or the torah.

“So “if you are in doubt concerning that which We have revealed unto you, then ask those who are reciting the Book before you. Verily, the truth has come to you from your Lord. So be not of those who doubt (it).” (Qur’an 10:94)

Notice it says ask those who are reciting the book. The one(s) being addressed are not being told to consult the gospel or the torah.

As regard the ‘if’ Arabic grammar has conditionals that are similar to what we find in English.

The zero conditional is used for universal truths or general facts. Example: If water reaches 100°C, it boils.

The second conditional is used for unlikely or hypothetical scenarios. Example: If I won a million dollars, I would travel the world.

So the example used above is the conditional used for universal truths and general facts.

The zero conditional in Arabic (as in English) is not a genuine hypothetical. When the Qur’an says ‘If you are in doubt…’ it is not suggesting that doubt is possible. Rather, it is establishing a universal principle: when in doubt (and the Prophet -peace be upon him, was not), the remedy is to ask the learned. The ‘if’ is rhetorical. To make a point, not to suggest a real possibility.

Examples in the Qur’an:

“Say, “If The Most Merciful had a son, I would certainly have been the first one to worship him.” Exalted is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, Lord of the Throne, above what they describe.”(Qur’an 43:81-82)

The if here is not one of a hypothetical but rather a universal truth. Allah does not have a son.

“Say, “If there had been with Him gods, as they say, then they would have sought to the Owner of the Throne a way.” (Qur’an 17:42)

The if here is not one of a hypothetical but rather a universal truth. There are no other gods.

Also, let us take a look at a key part of the text. “Ask those who are reciting the book.” It doesn’t say ask the Jews or Samaritans. It doesn’t say ask the Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Christian, or the Eastern Orthodox. It says, ‘those who are reciting the book‘. So, if Muhammed (saw) asked ‘those who are reciting the book, he would receive some common themes but also a cacophony of discordant voices. 

This confirms the following:

“Do not be like those who became divided and differed after the clear proofs had come to them.” (Qur’an 3:105)

“The Jews and Christians each claim that none will enter Paradise except those of their own faith. These are their desires. Reply, “Produce your proof if what you say is true.” (Qur’an 2:1111)

Notice the text says ‘produce your proof’ it does not say ‘let us consult the torah and the gospel’.

Another example.

“Or have they taken gods besides Him? Say, “Produce your proof. This is the message for those with me and the message of those before me.” But most of them do not know the truth, so they are turning away.” (Qur’an 21:24)

In both examples with the idolaters of mecca, the jews and the christians all are being told to ‘produce their proofs’ what are your arguments.

Why do the rabbis (l-rabaniyuna) and religious scholars (ahbaru) not forbid them from saying what is sinful and devouring what is unlawful? How wretched is what they have been practicing.” (Qur’an 5:63)

This is a clear appeal to authority. The rabbis and scholars could only be faulted if it was known that they had authority over thier people. The verse presupposes that the religious leaders have authority and that they are failing in their duty. This is a direct parallel to the traditional Christian model, where bishops and councils, not laypeople, are the authority.

This is not accidental. The Protestant project has always sought to undermine ecclesiastical authority. By recruiting traditional Christians to fight the ‘Islamic Dilemma,’ Protestants are achieving what centuries of polemics could not: getting Catholics and Orthodox to abandon their own ecclesial principles and adopt the Protestant method of direct textual engagement.

It is bad enough that Protestant Evangelicals are ignorant of the context of 7th century Arabia, as well as the reality of the Pagan Arabs, as well as the Jewish and Christian communities.

What is extremely shocking is that representatives of traditional churches are willingy to drink from the same cup of ignorance.

Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) has never been the position of any traditional church.

Jesus claims that neither he nor the Bible guide you into all truth.

“I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when HE, the Spirit (Pneuma)Πνεῦμα of truth comes HE will guide you into all truth: (HOW?) For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (from God) that shall HE speak: and HE will show you things to come.” (John 16:12-13)

The problem for the Protestant: If the Spirit guides into all truth, then the Scripture can’t be the only infallible authority. This means The Bible alone does not contain all truth. It is only a partial revelation at bests and awaiting the Spirit of Truth and his guidance.

The problem for Catholics/Orthodox: If the Church (tradition) is the vehicle of the Spirit’s guidance, then the Church’s authority is self-referential and circular.

This is circular because:

The Church’s authority depends on the Bible
The Bible’s authority depends on the Church
Neither can independently validate the other.

So here we are. The real issue is we were promised someone who would SPEAK but in reality all we have are church councils (EO/Catholic) or private interpretations (1001 Protestant denominations). Stalemate.

The problem for the Catholics/Orthodox is that Protestants have unwittingly recruited them into an argument that undermines them and their authority.

The layman did not go directly to the text in the 7th century Arabia.

There are number of reasons historically why this is not the case.

1) Literacy, one cannot assume that the average person could read and write, Arabic, Amharic, Ge’ez, Aramaic, Greek. For example the reference in Qur’an 10:94. This has to obviously be a reference to those who can read. This brings us to the next point.

2) Not only does Qur’an 10:94 have to be a reference to those who can read but those who would have access to a text. So this brings us to the lack of accessibility to the text. Today a Bible can be found in your average hotel. In that time people were not walking around with full canons.

3) It is a Protestant approach to go direct to the scripture and not a Traditional Church perspective. If one was Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox or Assyrian Church of the East, it was not the habit of laypeople to go directly to the text.

Thus, the Qur’anic command to ‘judge by what Allah has revealed’ cannot mean ‘read the Bible for yourself.’ It would have been historically impossible for the vast majority of Christians to comply. The command must mean something else entirely something consistent with both the traditional model of authority and the lived reality on the ground.

The Protestant use of the Islamic Dilemma is actually a full frontal attack on traditional Christianity (be it Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Assyrian Church of the East). Imagine Protestants telling Muslims to go direct to the Torah or the Injeel without the medium of the Holy Spirit or the guidance of the Church!! This is very mischievous and very cunning proposition propagated by the Protestants (esp evangelicals).

There were no Protestant churches nor a Protestant canon in the 7th century.

The following verse is often used by Protestant Christians.

“Do you believe in some of the book and reject the rest? Is there any reward for those who do so among you other than disgrace in this worldly life and being subjected to the harshest punishment on the Day of Judgment? For Allah is never unaware of what you do.” (Qur’an 2:285)

For the sake of argument let us say that Muslims understand this verse in the way that Protestants do.

What objective basis do the Protestants have for determing what is part of the book and what is not?

What objective basis do the Protestants have for determing what is scripture and what is not?

If a Muslim in the 7th or 8th century were to listen to the children of Israel, in particular the tribes of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh what would the Samaritans advise in regard to following which scriptures?

The Muslim would find that the Samaritans reject all parts of the Bible except what they consider the Torah. That is to say they only accept Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. They reject the rest.

If a Muslim in the 7th or 8th century were to listen to the children of Israel, in particular those who are called Jews, what would be the advise in terms of scripture?

The Muslims would find that the bulk of Jews follow more than the five books that the Samaritans follow. They also follow an oral torah.

If a Muslim in the 7th or 8th century were to embrace Christianity they would join any number of traditional churches that accepted the following books: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees.

The Protestant canon of 66 books did not exist in the 7th century. It was a 16th-century invention. The Qur’an could not possibly be endorsing a canon that did not yet exist. This alone destroys the ‘Islamic Dilemma’.

If a Muslim in the 7th or 8th century were to embrace Christianity they would join any number of traditional churches that differ on the canon of the New Testament as well.

“By the beginning of the 5th century, or slightly earlier, the Syrian Church’s version of the Bible, the Peshitta (‘simple’ translation) was formed. For the New Testament it represented an accommodation of the Syrian canon with that of the Greeks. It contains 22 books – all of the present New Testament except:

II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, Revelation of John.”

“For the eastern part of the Syrian Church this constituted the closing of the canon, for after the Council of Ephesus (431 CE) the East Syrians separated themselves as the Nestorians. There are many surviving manuscripts of the Peshitta, the oldest of which bears the date 442. For much more on Peshitta history, see the article at The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism. It is noteworthy that exactly these 22 books are cited by John Chrystosom (~347-407) and Theodoret (393-466) from the School of Antioch. For a visual summary of these 22 books see the Cross Reference Table.”

Source: (http://www.ntcanon.org/Peshitta.shtml)

Thus, even if we assume the Qur’an is endorsing the Peshitta canon, it would be endorsing a Bible that lacks five books the Protestant considers canonical. Which canon did the Qur’an endorse? The answer: none. The Qur’an does not endorse any canon. It endorses the original revelation, which is now lost or corrupted.

The Protestants imagine that the Qur’an is somehow endorsing a tangible canon.

What tangible canon would that be? Especially seeing that the Christians themselves were/are in dispute over it?

This is the same question that Christians who follow a traditional Church pose to those who espouse ‘anti-Islamianity’. That is why their whole preaching is against Islam, but they don’t have anywhere for Muslims to go after they apostate from Islam. It’s just anti-Islam teaching, but they (those preachers) do not reveal which church they are affiliated with. That is if they are affiliated with one at all.

This is also known as ‘churchless apologetic’.

This is why the ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is promoted primarily by ‘churchless apologists’. Grifters and independent evangelicals with no affiliation to any traditional Church. They have no stake in defending a particular ecclesiastical tradition. They simply want to tear down Islam, with no thought to where the Muslim convert would go. They are a law unto themselves, accountable to no one but their own whims and private interpretations. And this, ironically, is precisely what the traditional Churches have always warned against i.e The chaos of sola scriptura without the anchor of ecclesiastical authority.

Let us reflect on what Pope Benedict XVI said in his ‘What Is Christianity?’

“All of this means that the Christian faith is not a religion of the Book (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 108 and the Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini of 2008). Holy Scripture speaks only in the living community of the Church. There is a double exchange here, a relationship of subordination and superordination. On the one hand, the Church clearly submits to the Word of God, always having to let itself be guided and judged by it, on the other hand, however, Scripture, starting
from its whole, can only be adequately interpreted in the living Church. This position, adopted by the whole Church until the 16th century, was rejected in the Reformation with the principle of sola
scriptura . Christianity now appears as a religion of the Book.

Source: (Benedetto XVI Che Cos’e il Cristianesimo quasi un testamento spirituale).

Here we have the Pope himself affirming that the Catholic Church does not treat the Bible as a self-interpreting text. The Qur’an says the same thing: ‘Ask the People of the Reminder.’ The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is not just unhistorical it is anti-Catholic, anti-Orthodox, and anti-Assyrian.

Holy Scripture speaks only in the living community of the Church. -Pope Benedict.

Example.

The doctrine of Invincible Ignorance.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that not everyone necessarily needs to confess Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour simply becuase not everyone is able to do so.

“Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

“But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:8-9)

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already.” (John 3:18)

These text seem very clear that one needs to confess their faith in Jesus to be saved. However, the Roman Catholic Church via it’s doctrine of ‘Invincible Ignorance’ says not so fast.

The concept of invincible ignorance allows for the salvation of young children, the mentally disabled, and others who never heard the gospel.

St Augustine has a whole chapter title called: Chapter 2 [II.]— Faith in Christ Not Necessary to Salvation, If a Man Without It Can Lead a Righteous Life.

He states:

“Therefore the nature of the human race, generated from the flesh of the one transgressor, if it is self-sufficient for fulfilling the law and for perfecting righteousness, ought to be sure of its reward, that is, of everlasting life, even if in any nation or at any former time faith in the blood of  Christ was unknown to it. For God is not so unjust as to defraud righteous persons of the reward of righteousness, because there has not been announced to them the mystery of Christ’s divinity and humanity, which was manifested in the flesh. 1 Timonty 3:16 For how could they believe what they had not heard of; or how could they hear without a preacher? Romans 10:14 For faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say (adds he): Have they not heard? Yea, verily; their sound went out into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. Romans 10:17-18.  Before, however, all this had been accomplished, before the actual preaching of the gospel reaches the ends of all the earth — because there are some remote nations still (although it is said they are very few)”

Source: (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm)

The doctrine of invincible ignorance even allows for pagans who persecuted and killed Christians to enter heaven if the Pope prays for their deliverance. There is no need for the person to confess Christ even if they are able.

John of Damascus said that God freed Trajan from Hell after the prayers of Saint Gregory the Great.

“Further, the Damascene in the same sermon relates that Gregory, while praying for Trajan, heard a voice from heaven saying to him: “I have heard thy voice, and I pardon Trajan; : and of this fact the Damascene adds in the same sermon, “the whole East and West are witnesses. ” Yet it is clear that Trajan was in hell, since “he put many martyrs to a cruel death” [De his qui fide dormierunt]. Therefore the suffrages of the Church avail even for those who are in hell.”

Source: (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5071.htm)

The Roman Catholic Church can appeal to scripture but it is not necessay.

“And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34)

“In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.” (Acts 17:30)

So Catholics argue that God cannot issue commands that people can’t obey.

If the Catholic Church can interpret away the seemingly clear words of Acts 4:12 and Romans 10:9, then on what basis do Protestants claim that the Bible is self-iexplanatory? The very existence of the doctrine of invincible ignorance proves that the Church and not the text is the final authority.

Catholics like Sam Shamoun and Cameron Bertuzzi stand ready to debate Protestants like Anthony Rogers and Samuel Green on Invincible Ignorance.

The Protestant project has always sought to undermine church authority.

In Mainz, Germany, in the mid-1450s, Johann Gutenberg and his partner Johann Fust published more than 150 large-format copies of the Bible in Latin. This is the book known today as the Gutenberg Bible. That was in the 1450s, and there were 150 copies.

Up until that point, imagine all the Christian souls scattered throughout the Earth; they lived and died without once having or holding an individual Bible in their possession. Hopefully, some Christians will be more appreciative of this fact.

For over a millennium, Christians had no personal Bibles. They relied on the Church. They relied upon its liturgy, its priests, its bishops, its councils. The Protestant idea that the Bible is for the laity is a 16th-century invention. The Qur’an, revealed in the 7th century, could not have been commanding Christians to do what was historically impossible.

Books in those times were luxury items reserved exclusively for the ultra-wealthy, ruling elites, and church communities.

Ordinary Christians experienced the scriptures orally. They would gather together at church services to hear a literate priest or bishop read the letters and gospels aloud.

That Christian laity did not rely upon the Bible to receive their guidance. They relied upon their respective church, whether it was the Latin Roman Catholic, Assyrian Church, Oriental or Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church, and not scripture, was the source of guidance and inspiration for the average Christian.

We can clearly see that the Qur’an has never endorsed the entirety of any Biblical canon or text.

The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ has two horns both of which rest on an assumption. The assumption is that the Qur’an claims the Bible is true.

Does the Qur’an claim the Bible is true?

The word Bible has its etymological root in the Greek ta biblia, which means “small books”.

Possibly the closest equivalent would be the following:

“The Messenger believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, and so do the believers. They believe in Allah, His angels, His Books (kutubihi), and His messengers.” (Qur’an 2:285)

This particular verse does not clarify which books are to be believed. Only that Muslims are to believe
in ‘His Books’.

As we have demonstrated that historically speaking, Protestants cannot prove that the Qur’an 2:285 is identical to a 66 book canon.

One thing is certain. The Gospel is not included in the text of Qur’an 2:285. Hoever, Jesus is included in Qur’an 2:285.

The Qur’an never describes the Gospel as a book given to Jesus.

“And He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel.” (Qur’an 3:48)

An interesting note on the above. If the Torah was intact there would be no need for Allah to teach the Torah to Jesus.

“And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus , the son of Mary, (ma bayna yadayhi) having authority over the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and having authority over that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.” (Qur’an 5:46)

“So let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed in it. And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are the rebellious.” (Qur’an 5:47)

If the Gospel was in pristine condition the verse would have simply stated:

“And let the Christians judge by the Gospel.”

Yet, it is drawing attention to the ‘People of the Gospel’ (ahlul l’injili) to judge by what Allah has revealed therein.

The people who have the nomenclature ‘People of the Gospel’ are to judge.

Again keep in mind this is not a call for Christian laity to engage directly with their text.

Recall that we have already established two unassailable points. 1. Literacy was not widespread among all people. 2. Even it were not everyone had access to a text.

“Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them(ʿindahum).” (Qur’an 7:157)

If a person possesses a heavily edited or condensed version of a historical document, it is still legally and conversationally “with them” (ʿindahum).

Example.

“And those who disbelieve say, ‘Why was the Qur’an not revealed to him all at once?” (Qur’an 25:32)

This is a reference to the Qur’an but the entirety of the Qur’an was not revealed at this time. Yet the text is still calling it the Qur’an.

The Qur’an debunks the Protestant claim of preservation.

“There are some among them who distort what is in the Book(bil-kitabi) with their tongues to make you think this is from (l-kitabi) the Book but it is not what the (l-kitabi) Book says. They say, “It is from Allah”—but it is not from Allah. And they attribute lies to Allah knowingly.” (Qur’an 3:78)

The Protestants sweep this accusation aside by affirming that the text doesn’t say anything about textual corruption. It is about people who twist the words and meanings of their sacred text. However, as pointed out in a society where illiteracy was common place, the laity did not go directly to the text and many of them did not have the requisite language skills to acces it. This was already quite poisonous.

However, the next text are not so easily swept aside.

“Have you any hope that they will be true to you when a party of them used to listen(yasma’una) to the word of Allah, then used to (yuharrifunahu)change it, after they had understood(‘aqaluhu) it, knowingly.” (Qur’an 2:75)

This verse is quite explicit in the damnation of these people. That they actually would listen to the words of Allah (auditory hearing), they understood it, confirmed it and knowingly changed it during the oral transmission process!

  1. Received the revelation from Allah.
  2. Understood it.
  3. Knowingly distorted it during the oral transmission process.

One would have to be extremely vile to do such a thing.

‘Then woe to those who write the Book (l-kitaba) with their own hands, and then say: “This is from Allah,” to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.’ (Qur’an 2:79)

This is what we find “with them” (ʿindahum).

“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the (תּוֹרַת יְהֹוָה Torat YHWH) law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (Jeremiah 8:8)

Notice the text of Qur’an 2:79 says they make gain by what they wrote.

The following says that Jews can give interest to non-Jews but not to one another.

“Unto a foreigner you may lend interest; but not unto your brother you shall not lend interest, that Jehovah your God may bless you in all that you put your hand on, in the land wherever you go into possess it. When you shall vow a vow unto Jehovah your God, you shall not be slack to pay it: For Jehovah your God will surely require it of you; and it would be sin in you.” (Deuteronomy 23:20-21)

The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ uno verse card.

The Qur’an claims that the Gospel, Zabur and Torah are revelation from Allah.
If one claims they have the Gospel, Zabur or Torah and those contents do not claim it is from Allah then it should be rejected.

For example, let us imagine that the Gospel is equivalent to any number of competing New Tesatament canons (35 books, 22 books or 27 books) this in and of itself raises questions how one objectively comes to the correct number of books.

However, is there anywhere where the New Testament claims that it is from God?

Many Christians will point to 2 Timothy 3:16.

Let us examine the text.

“Every writing inspired by God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction which is in righteousness.”

Well, this doesn’t say much. Every writing (graphé)inspired by God is profitable. This begs the question. On what objective basis does the Protestant determine which writings are inspired by God?

πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ

The Two Possible Readings

TranslationReadingImplication
KJV / ESV / NIV“All writing is God-breathed and profitable…”Predicative: All scripture (as a category) is inspired
ASV / RSV / NEB“Every writing inspired by God is also profitable…”Restrictive: Only inspired scripture is profitable

The Grammatical Issue

The Greek construction πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος (pasa graphē theopneustos) is ambiguous:

  1. Predicative Reading: “All writing is God-breathed” (the adjective describes the entire category)
  2. Restrictive Reading: “Every writing that is God-breathed” (the adjective limits the category)

The Critical Point:

The absence of the verb “is” (ἐστιν – estin) in the Greek makes the translation a matter of interpretation. There is no explicit “is” in the text. The translator must decide whether to supply it as a predicative or a restrictive statement.

By the way, most of your translations will translate graphé as ‘scripture’ to give you the indication that it is somehow sacred.

Look how the various translations render the Greek into English.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/2-timothy/3-16-compare.html.

The restrictive reading makes the most sense. That is because there is no Christian on Earth that believes that every writing is God -breathed. That would also make the Qur’an God-breathed and we would not be having this conversation.

The problem for the Protestant. (Every Christian must ask this in reality).

If only some writings are God-breathed, then:

  • Who determines which writings are inspired?
  • What is the criterion for inspiration?
  • How do we know which graphē are God-breathed?

This leads to the question of canon.

The Circular Problem:

  1. Protestant Claim: 2 Timothy 3:16 proves that all Scripture is inspired.
  2. Problem: The verse does not tell us which writings are Scripture.
  3. Result: We must have a canon to know which writings are inspired.
  4. But: The canon is determined different competing apostolic Churches, not by the text itself.

This is circular because:

The Church’s authority depends on the Bible.
The Bible’s authority depends on the Church.
Neither can independently validate the other.

So here we are. In reality all we have are church councils (EO/Catholic) or private interpretations (1001 Protestant denominations). Stalemate.

The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ undermines Jesus teachings and becomes a Satanic Dilemma for themselves.

“If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. “How then will his kingdom stand?” (Matthew 12:26)

The context of Matthew 12:26 is Jesus’ response to the Pharisees, who accused him of driving out demons by the power of Beelzebul (Satan). Jesus used logical reasoning to expose the flaw in their claim, explaining that a divided kingdom or household cannot survive. Therefore, it would make no sense for Satan to cast out his own demons, as that would mean working against himself and destroying his own kingdom

The Protestant claim is that the spiritual force behind the Qur’an is none other than Satan.

If Satan inspired the Qur’an, why would he command people to follow the Torah and Gospel?

The Bible says Satan is the father of lies.

“You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44).

If he is the father of lies, he would not inspire a book that tells people to follow the truth (the Bible).

Therefore, the Qur’an cannot be from Satan. It must be from God.

The Christian cannot escape this without admitting that the Qur’an is either:

A) From God (which they deny), or

B) A bizarre, self-defeating satanic book that commands people to follow the very scripture that would lead them to Jesus and save them from Satan. This ultimately debunks Jesus logic given in Matthew 12:26.

C) The Christian must admit that the Qur’an does not confirm the totality of what Christians call the Gospel and what Jews call the Torah. This would mean the Qur’an’s confirmation is selective, conditional, and discriminatory. But this undermines the entire foundation of the ‘Islamic Dilemma’.

The Christian cannot say the Qur’an is entirely false (because it commands people to follow the Bible) and cannot say it’s entirely true (because that would mean accepting Islam). The only logical exits are:

Admit the Qur’an is from God (conversion).

Admit that Satan sometimes commands people to follow God (which is theologically absurd)

Admit the Muslim position is true (the Qur’an does not confirm the totality of what Christians call the Gospel and what the Jews call the Torah -which undermines both faiths.) < This would be what Satan would do. Satan would obfuscate a matter not lead people to God.

This is why traditional Christian Churches such as the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Assyrian Church of the East did not use these type of arguments against Islam.

They recognized the logical fallacy of such arguments. However, many catechumens of both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition have fallen for the Protestant approach. They have brought shame and disrepute towards their respective churches.

The ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is a Protestant invention. It is historically ignorant, theologically shallow, and logically self-defeating. It betrays the very traditions it purports to defend. Traditional Christians who embrace it are unwittingly abandoning their own principles and fighting a battle on Protestant ground. The Qur’an invites a different approach: reasoned argument, consultation with the learned, and a return to the original revelation that it confirms and clarifies. The question is not ‘Which text is true?’ but ‘Where is the truth?’ And the Qur’an answers: it is in the Reminder that Allah has sent down. It is clear, preserved, and accessible to all who seek it.

To fully appreciate the Qur’anic message, we must imagine the religious landscape of the 7th century. it was a world of competing factions, warring sects, and conflicting claims to truth.

Consider the scene. The Jews and Samaritans were at odds with one another. The Samaritans accepted only the Pentateuch, rejected the Prophets and Writings, and worshipped on Mount Gerizim. The Jews accepted the entire Tanakh and worshipped in Jerusalem. Both claimed to be the true heirs of Abraham. Both anathematized the other neither accepting Jesus as the Messiah, each claiming to possess the true Torah. The Samaritans had their own version of the Torah, their own Mount Gerizim, their own priesthood. The Jews had their own Torah, their own Temple Mount, their own rabbinic traditions.

Then you had the Christians. But which Christians? The Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Christians, the Eastern Orthodox all arguing with one another over the nature of Christ, the number of his natures, the proper way to calculate Easter, the veneration of icons. Each claimed to be the true Church. Each claimed to have the true faith. Each anathematized the others.

These Christians practiced baptism as a death and resurrection ritual.

Then you had the Sabeans, also known as the Mandeans. They accepted John the Baptist but not Jesus. They practiced ritual baptism, but it carried a different meaning than what the Christians claimed. They had their own scriptures, their own prophets, their own traditions. They were a living witness to the fact that baptism was not the exclusive property of Christianity.

And among all these groups, there was no unified voice. The Pope in Rome claimed authority over the West. The Patriarch of Constantinople claimed authority over the East. The Patriarch of Alexandria claimed authority over Egypt and Ethiopia. The Patriarch of Antioch claimed authority over Syria and beyond. Each claimed to be the successor of Peter, the guardian of the true faith.

There was no single Bible. There were multiple canons: the 27-book canon of the West, the 22-book canon of the Syrian Church, the longer canons of the Ethiopian and Coptic Churches. There were multiple languages: Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Ge’ez, Armenian. There were multiple traditions: the Latin Rite, the Byzantine Rite, the Syriac Rite, the Alexandrian Rite.

Into this chaos came Muhammed, peace be upon him, with a single, powerful, unifying voice. He did not claim to bring a new religion. He came to restore the ancient faith of Abraham. The faith that all the prophets had taught. He did not speak from his own authority. He recited what was revealed to him by Allah, through the Angel Gabriel. He did not claim to be a new pope or patriarch. He claimed to be the final Messenger, confirming what was true in the previous revelations and correcting what had been corrupted.

The message was simple, clear, and cohesive:

  • There is no god but Allah, and Muhammed (saw) is His Messenger.
  • Allah is One. Not three, not incarnate.
  • All the prophets from Adam to Jesus (upon them be peace) taught the same message: submission to the One God.
  • The Qur’an is the final, preserved, and clarifying revelation.
  • Judgment is coming. Believe and do good. Or reject it and face the consequences.

For a truth-seeker in the 7th century, the choice was clear. On one side, a cacophony of competing sects, conflicting canons, and anathematizing councils. On the other side, a single, powerful, unifying voice calling all people to submit to the One God. Which message was more cohesive? Which message was more compelling? Which message would you follow?

Allah/God addresses this very scene:

‘So He has made the religion straight and simple. And do not be divided over it.’ (Qur’an 42:13)

‘And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided.’ (Qur’an 3:103)

‘And those who have been given the Book did not differ except after knowledge had come to them—out of jealousy among themselves.’ (Qur’an 42:14)

The Qur’anic message of unity was not just theological it was a lived reality. It offered clarity in a world of confusion. It offered authority in a world of division. It offered access to revelation in a world where the layperson was excluded from the text. And it offered a single, unified community in a world of warring sects.

“O humanity! What has emboldened you against your Lord, the Most Generous?” (Qur’an 82:6)

May Allah guide the sincere Christians who are longing for the truth. Those who have a hunger in their heart for guidance.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.




Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

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

June 12, 2026 · 1:02 am

Ahmad predicted by Jesus. An honest inquiry.

“And when Jesus, son of Mary, said: O’ children of Israel, surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being AHMAD. But when he came to them with clear arguments, they said: This is clear enchantment.”(Qur’an 61:6)

﷽ 

This text of the Qur’an has either been a means where Christians have tripped themselves up; or it has been a huge eye opener, one that has led many of them to embracing Islam.

So when dealing with Christians concerning this text you will find those who fall into one of two categories.

A) Those who are insincere and think this text of the Qur’an is some how a problem for Muslims.

B) Those whom are sincerely inquiring into the matter and willing to ponder over the justifications that are given.

The first very obvious point is that this text of the Qur’an no where said that Ahmad is written in any competing number of Christian New Testament canons. The text states: “And when Jesus, son of Mary, said:

Often those Christians antagonistic to Islam read the above text of the Qur’an and think that a Muslim should reply: “Oh yes that is in Matthew chapter so and so verse so and so.”

There is nothing in Qur’an 61:6 that would indicate that the name ‘Ahmad’ would be captured in any of the competing Christian New Testament canons

This would be similar to the text of the New Testament:

“And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: “He shall be called a Nazarene.” (Matthew 2:23)

The reason why Christians have not been able to find that particular prophecy is because the above text said it was: ‘spoken’ by the prophets not necessarily that it was written by the prophets.

Archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom offers a possible perspective.

This Archbishop of the Latin Roman Catholics/Eastern Orthodox Christians offers an interesting perspective.

“We see here the cause why the angel also, putting them at ease for the future, restores them to their home. And not even this simply, but he adds to it a prophecy, That it might be fulfilled, says he, which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. Matthew 2:23.”

“And what manner of prophet said this? Be not curious, nor overbusy. For many of the prophetic writings have been lost; and this one may see from the history of the Chronicles. For being negligent, and continually falling into ungodliness, some they suffered to perish, others they themselves burnt up and cut to pieces. The latter fact Jeremiah relates; Jeremiah 36:23 the former, he who composed the fourth book of Kings, saying, that after a long time the book of Deuteronomy was hardly found, buried somewhere and lost. But if, when there was no barbarian there, they so betrayed their books, much more when the barbarians had overrun them. For as to the fact, that the prophet had foretold it, the apostles themselves in many places call Him a Nazarene.” -Archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom

Source: (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200109.htm)

Thus, if what Archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom says of ‘The Nazarene’ is true than it is likewise that this could be the case for ‘Ahmad’. Namely:

“For many of the prophetic writings have been lost; and this one may see from the history of the Chronicles. For being negligent, and continually falling into ungodliness, some they suffered to perish, others they themselves burnt up and cut to pieces.”

This argument merely demonstrates that the absence of “Ahmad” from the New Testament does not disprove the Qur’anic claim.

Did Jesus ever write anything?

They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. (John 8:6-8)

The assumption is that Jesus (as) wrote what he spoke: “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Yet, we have no idea what he wrote the second time.

Not only this but may Allah (swt) reward brother Ammar in the comments section. He had reminded me that even the text that alleges Jesus (as) wrote something in the sands is a forgery.

This is taken from a Christian website:

https://www.gotquestions.org/John-7-53-8-11.html

The story is a clear forgery. Wasn’t found in the 4th century manuscripts.

The New Testament also mentions that Jesus said things that were not recorded.

“After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. ” (Luke 2:43-46)

Luke does not record any questions that Jesus asked! So this is clear evidence that there are indeed things that Jesus said that are not captured nor recorded by the New Testament.

Since Jesus (as) didn’t really write anything it makes sense we wouldn’t find anything written concerning “Ahmad”. And even if he did write something, we have no evidence it was preserved.

 However, note the above text does state that Jesus (as) said:

“Oh children of Israel, surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad.” (Qur’an 61:6)

This is more than sufficient for those who believe. Allah (swt) said that Jesus (as) said it and that is enough for the Muslims. 

We are not required to go beyond this. ⬆️⬆️⬆️

Though, for those Christians who are sincere we will endeavor to give them some things to reflect over.

What you are about to read is simply food for thought for those inquiring into the matter.

The New Testament teaches that Jesus never claimed to be the last Prophet. 

Jesus (as) never claimed to be the last prophet. That admission in and of itself already is an argument in favour of our proposition. It does not necessarily prove it; however it is a point in favour of our proposition.

Think about this. When other Christian denominations get into debates and discussions with Mormons (The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints) they never shut down the Mormons with saying: “Well, Joseph Smith can’t be a Prophet because Jesus said there would be no more.” If that were so the matter would be an open and shut case.

This is a significant point in favour of the Islamic position.

If Jesus never claimed to be the last prophet, then:

There is no theological barrier to another prophet coming after him. Nothing in Jesus’s teaching rules this out.

First, Jesus himself didn’t shut down the possiblity of true prophets or even other messiahs coming!

“For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Matthew 24:24)

Jesus could have closed the door by stating, “there will be no Messiah after me”. He didn’t. He could have said, “There will be no prophet after me.” He didn’t.

The New Testament gives many examples of prophets who came after Jesus.

Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a lifelong friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. (Acts 13:1)

And Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, encouraged and strengthened the brothers with many words.” (Acts 15:32)

“And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.” (Acts 21:10)

What has passed is more than sufficient to answer the objections of those who attack the Qur’an 61:6. We can see that the Qur’an says that it was something that Jesus (as) spoke and it doesn’t say it was written. We can also see that the New Testament does not have a definite statement about Jesus (as) being the last prophet. 

However, for those Christians who like to reflect we will present more information to reflect upon.

Discussing the Identiy and the Prophecy of the Comforter/Advocate.

Why does the identify of the Comforter need clarification?

Now notice something about this text in John 14:26. Notice that the identity of The Comforter seems to be a matter of ambiguity. This ambiguity is followed up by the clarification: ‘Which is the Holy Spirit’

Now to be clear of the Greek manuscripts that we currently know about John 14:26 is read as: “The Comforter, Which is the Holy Spirit.” We are saying this in the interest of transparency and not to over state the case.

However, the very presence of this clarification suggests that the identity of the Paraclete was not self-evident to the original readers. If the meaning were obvious, no clarification would be needed.

What we are going to present is justification to show that this is a scribal insertion. As you can read the text on the left is quite intelligible without the addition ‘which is the Holy Spirit‘.

Some Early Church Fathers saw the possibility of the Paraclete being a reference to a human being.

The Montanists professed to be prophets and to speak under divine inspiration. Their founder, Montanus, claimed to be the Paraclete, the “Comforter,” or Helper, of John, chapter 14. Tertullian became a Montanist before he died.”

Source: (Edgar J Goodspeed How Came The Bible pg. 67.)

Eusebius explicitly states that some “boasted that Montanus was the Paraclete”

Prima Qur’an Comment: Tertullian and Monatanus were early church fathers who played a crucial role in the development of the New Testament text Christians have today. So if such learned men saw the possibility of the Paraclete referring to a human being then who are we to say?

The Christians will claim thath Montanist did not claim that Montanus himself was the Paraclete. Instead,
they believed the Holy Spirit spoke through Montanus and his prophetesses. As one can see from the comments with a Christian below there are debates on rather Montanist theology was monolithic. Sources note distinctions between Monarchian and non-Monarchian Montanist.

“The enemy of God’s Church, who is emphatically a hater of good and a lover of evil, and leaves untried no manner of craft against men, was again active in causing strange heresies spring up against the Church. For some persons, like venomous reptiles, crawled over Asia and Phrygia, boasting that Montanus was the Paraclete, and that the women that followed him, Priscilla and Maximilla, were prophetesses of Montanus.” Source: Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History volume 5 chapter 14

Source: (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm)

“Christian tradition has identified this figure (Paraclete) as the Holy Spirit, but scholars like Spitta, Delafosse, Sasse, Bultmann, and Betz have doubted whether this identification is true to the original picture and have suggested that the Paraclete was once an independent salvific figure, later confused with the Holy Spirit.”

Source: (The Anchor Bible, 1970, Volume 29A, p.1135)

“The Paraclete is a parallel figure to Jesus himself; and this conclusion is confirmed in the fact that the title is suitable for both. It is clear from 14:16 that the source thought there were sending of two Paracletes, Jesus and his successor, the one following the other”

Source: (The Gospel of John a Commentary, Rudolf Bultmann, p. 567)

The word Paraclete is used in the New Testament to refer to a human being

“My little children, these things write I unto you, that you sin not and if any man sin, we have an advocate (Parakleton) Παράκλητον with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous) (1st John 2:1)

Note: The first time the word Paraclete is used is in reference to a man, Jesus.

Jesus (as) mentions that the Paraklete will be like him -and not unlike him.

“If you love me, keep my commandments, and I will pray for the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter (allon Parakleton) ἄλλον Παράκλητον, that HE may abide with you forever.” (John 14:15-16)

‘Another‘- the Greek word Allon means another of the same kind.

The ‘allon Parakleton‘ means in addition to himself another messenger, not heteros, another of a different kind!

If Jesus (as) meant a comforter of a different kind he would have used the Greek word heteron meaning-another of a different kind. The Greek word heteron is where we get the word heterosexual.

An example of the Greek word heteros being used.

“I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ another (heteron) ἕτερον gospel.” (Galatians 1:6-9)

(Here the Greek word another (heteron) is another of a different kind.)

A derivative of the word Paraclete is also used to reference a human being.

“Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which is translated as “son of encouragement (parakleseos)” (Acts 4:36)

This is such a very curious text that is full of obfuscation. So we have an individual named Joseph, which is being called ‘Barnabas’ by the apostles. Which in turn is being translated as: The son of encouragement [Parakleseos].

Does the Holy Spirit hear and speak?

“I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when HE, the Spirit (Pneuma)Πνεῦμα of truth comes HE will guide you into all truth: (HOW?) For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (akousei) ἀκούσει that shall HE speak (lalesei) λαλήσει and HE will show you things to come.” (John 16:12-13)

HEAR– The Greek verb (akousei) means to perceive audible sounds.

SPEAK-The Greek verb ; (lalesei) means to speak, to emit sounds.

So this HE has to be able to hear audibly and tell verbally.

The two Greek words Akousei and Lalesei refer to a concrete being with speech organs.

Recall the following text:

” But the Spirit itself (auto) αὐτὸ itself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” (Romans 8:26)

Ask a Christiain does the Holy Spirit speak? Ask him (The Holy Spirit) to speak then!

Does (John 16:12-13) apply to the Holy Spirit? No!

A) Shall not speak of Himself.

B) Whatso ever He shall here is what he will speak.

This cannot be a reference to the Holy Spirit as Christians understand it.

The Qur’an is the created speech of Allah and and the Blessed Prophet (saw) is the mouthpiece of this created speech.

“By the star when it goes down your companion is neither astray nor being misled, nor does he say of his own desire. It is no less than an inspiration sent down to him: He was taught by one mighty in power.” (Qur’an 53:1-5)

Another point is if we reflect upon the above text it presents problems for Christian theology.

“For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (akousei) ἀκούσει that shall HE speak (lalesei) λαλήσει and HE will show you things to come.”

How would the speech of the Spirit be different than the speech of the Father in essence?

Why would the Holy Spirit need to be told what to say when his knowledge is the same as the knowledge of the father in essence?

Remember Christians cannot use the fully deity/full man argument like they can for Jesus. The Holy Spirit does not have two natures as the Dyophysitist (majority of Christianity) claim about Jesus.

So the text of (John 16:12-13) does not necessarily need to be about a man. However, it is equally not possible for it to be about the Holy Spirit-at least not as Christians today understand it.

Say, “Whoever is an enemy of Gabriel should know that he revealed this to your heart by Allah’s Will, confirming what came before it—a guide and good news for the believers.” (Qur’an 2:97)

Angel Gabriel hears from Allah and speaks to the prophets. This is exactly what angels do: they receive and deliver messages. Gabriel is a created being who hears the command of Allah.

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity has historically struggled with the subordination question. The text of John 16:13 seems to imply a subordinate figure. A figure who hears and speaks, who receives rather than originates. This fits Gabriel perfectly.

Jesus (as) constantly refers to the Paraclete as ‘He’ and not ‘It’.

When one goes back and looks at all the text Jesus consistently used the masculine pronoun ‘He’, however, Spirit in Greek is used in the neuter gender which could be he, she or simply it.

lLet us look at various translations of John 1:32.

Notice that the King James version translates the neutral gender as ‘it’ where as in the New King James version they switch it to ‘He’. The other versions also make it masculine gender as ‘He’, or ‘himself’. The New International Version is the best translation remaining non committal in the gender specification.

“Likewise the Spirit also keeps our infirmities: For we know not what we should pray for as we ought: But the Spirit itself (auto) αὐτὸ itself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” (Romans 8:26)

The above passages show the Holy Spirit as neuter gender which means passages can translate the Holy Spirit as She, He, It.  Whereas it is clear that the Paraklete is only referenced as ‘He’. 

Recall the point about Jesus calling the Paraklete as (allon Parakleton) ἄλλον Παράκλητον

Another of the same kind, the same genus. The Holy Spirit can be her, him, or it. Jesus is not reference as ‘her’ or it’.

Another reason why (The Comforter, Which is the Holy Spirit) is a scribal insertion.

The New Testament claims Jesus must go away in order for the Holy Spirit to come.

Jesus (as) is reported to make the following claim:

“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, The Comforter (Parakletos)Παράκλητος will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send HIM unto you.” (John 16:7)

Yet, the same New Testament clearly shows The Holy Spirit concurrent with Jesus.

So Jesus has to depart in order for this Paraklete to come. Based upon this admission the Paraklete cannot be not the Holy Spirit!

The reason why the Paraklete cannot be the Holy Spirit is because Jesus (as) was around when he was around. Ample text make this abundantly clear.

“And the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him.” (Luke 3:23)

(Jesus didn’t have to go anywhere!)

“And Jesus being full of the Holy Spirit returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness.” (Luke 4:1)

(Again Jesus and Holy Spirit are present together.)

“Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father sent me, So I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit.” (John 20:21-22)

(Jesus didn’t go anywhere!)

“ For he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.” (Luke 1:15)

John was filled with the Holy Spirit before he was even born, which is unlike Jesus who had to receive the Holy Spirit after baptism. The point being John (being filled with the Holy Spirit) was around Jesus.

(Jesus didn’t go anywhere!)

So all these text prove that this Paraklete cannot by the Holy Spirit as Jesus (as) has been around when the Paraklete has been around. 

However, Jesus (as) mentions that he needs to go in order to come. This is also an indirect proof that Jesus (as) is dead and not like some have imagined that he is alive in the heavens.

Conclusion.

Jesus departing. These texts are explicit and have proven to be a problem for Christians. The only thing
the Christian can do is to say that the Muslims do not understand these texts. Then the Christian only offers an interpretation of what is obviously clear text. 

If the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit, then Jesus was wrong to say the Paraclete would only come after his departure. Either the text is inconsistent, or the identification is incorrect.

John 16:12-13 Does this refer to a Prophet to come or the Spirit of Truth?

“I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when HE, the Spirit (Pneuma)Πνεῦμα of truth comes HE will guide you into all truth: (HOW?) For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (from God) that shall HE speak: and HE will show you things to come.” (John 16:12-13)

So a Christian may object that this can be a reference to a Prophet because the word spirit is clearly used. However, that is because the word ‘spirit’ is being used as a metonymy for a Prophet. It has been used in the following verse in such a way:

“Beloved believe not every SPIRIT (pneumati) πνεύματι , but try the SPIRITS (pneumata) πνεύματα whether they are of God: Because many false PROPHETS are gone out into the world. Hereby know you the SPIRIT of God: Every SPIRIT that confessed that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God:” (1 John 4:1-6)

So you can see that Spirits/Prophets are used interchangeably. So that objection is answered.

However, Muslims can be charitable and agree that this does indeed refer to the Holy Spirit.

Al-Rūḥ Al-Amīn (Trustworthy Spirit)mentioned in the Qur’an.

“‘Which the trustworthy spirit brought down into your heart so that you may be one of the warners.” (Qur’an 26:193-194)

“Say, “The holy spirit has brought it down from your Lord with the truth to reassure the believers, and as a guide and good news for those who submit.” (Qur’an 16:102)

Jesus claims that neither he nor the Bible guide you into all truth.

“I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when HE, the Spirit (Pneuma)Πνεῦμα of truth comes HE will guide you into all truth: (HOW?) For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (from God) that shall HE speak: and HE will show you things to come.” (John 16:12-13)

This means The Bible alone does not contain all truth. It is only a partial revelation at bests and awaiting the Spirit of Truth and his guidance.

By admission Jesus is not guiding you into all truth. There is one who comes after him that does this.

This creates a problem for the Protestant: If the Spirit guides into all truth, then the Scripture can’t be the only infallible authority.

This creates a problem for Catholics/Orthodox: If the Church (tradition) is the vehicle of the Spirit’s guidance, then the Church’s authority is self-referential and circular.

This is circular because:

  1. The Church’s authority depends on the Bible
  2. The Bible’s authority depends on the Church
  3. Neither can independently validate the other

One thing that the Holy Spirit has never guided the Church on.

Here is a major point that the according to the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, The Roman Catholics, the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, the Baptist that the Holy Spirit has never guided any of them on.

You see the above Christian groups will tell you that God is one being in three persons. That these three persons are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They will tell you that the name of the son is Jesus. They will tell you that the name of the Father is Yahweh. But they will never tell you what the name of the Holy Spirit is. Why is that?

Why can they give us the name of the Father and the name of the Son but not the name of the Holy Spirit?

We can put Christian claims to the test in real time.

“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:  For every one that ask receives; and he that seeks shall find; and to him that knocks it shall be opened.” (Matthew 7:7-8)

So to any Christian on Earth. from any denomination. ask the Holy Spirit to reveal his name to you then. There is not justifiable reason why he shouldn’t.

Christian objections to some Muslim claims.

Now given that some Muslims use (John 16:12-13) as a reference to the coming of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) we will look at some of their ojections and see what is a sound Christiain objection and what is not a sound objection.

1st Christian objection.

“The Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.” (John 14:17)

It cannot be said that Prophet Muhammed (saw) will live inside anyone. This is unless we use some strained metaphor about his teachings living inside of us. However, it is best not to be like the Christians who use truly strained readings of their text. So this is a sound Christiain objection.

However, the above text is contradicted by the following:

“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, The Comforter (Parakletos)Παράκλητος will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send HIM unto you.” (John 16:7)

The Holy Spirit can’t both live with the disciples and be present in their midst and Jesus also needs to depart from the disciples in order to send the Holy Spirit. This is not adding up.

The New Testament does not record Jesus baptizing any of his disciples.

““I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Matthew 3:11)

Again, Jesus can’t be baptizing anyone with the Holy Spirit especially if it is expedient that he (Jesus) goes away.

The text of the Bible contradict the position of the Orthodox Church.

“In the Mystery of Chrismation (Gr. chrismatis, “anointing”), the newly baptized Orthodox Christian receives the Holy Spirit through anointing with oil by the bishop or priest. From the earliest times, the Church practiced Holy Chrismation immediately following Baptism. This same practice held, whether the newly baptized was an adult or an infant. Western churches (like Roman Catholics and Anglicans), in contrast, usually reserve Baptism and Chrismation for those who reach “the age of reason”.

Source: https://www.saintjohnchurch.org/receiving-the-holy-spirit/

“Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. (John 4:1-2)

So were these disciples unbaptized and performing baptism? If they were baptized why didn’t they receive the Holy Spirit then and there?

Not only this but why isn’t anyone asking the obvious. Where in the hell did the idea of baptism even come from? None of the Old Testament prophets were ever baptized for the forgiveness of sins. The practice is completely alien to the Tanach. Christianity is not in continuity with the Old Testament teachings at all.

2nd. Christian objection.

“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all (πάντα καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα) that I have told you.” (John 14:26)

First notice the need for clarity. The Comforter, the Holy Spirit. So would we know that the Comforter is the Holy Spirit without the text giving this clarifying remark?

That being said Muhammed (saw) did not come in the name of Jesus. Why would he? So that part is problematic.

What is not problematic is that this Comforter will remind them of what Jesus told them.

This means that there would be some lapse in regard to what Jesus taught. Ironically that would include this very passages in which Jesus is supposed to clarify the role of the Comforter as well as it’s identify.

πάντα καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα

The Greek word hypomnēskō unequivocally means “to remind.” It presupposes a lapse in memory.

Source: (https://biblehub.com/greek/upomne_sei_5279.htm)

A reminder is only necessary if something has been forgotten. If the disciples perfectly remembered everything Jesus taught, the Comforter’s role of “reminding” them would be redundant. Therefore, the text logically implies that:

  1. Some of Jesus’s teachings were lost or forgotten.
  2. The Comforter would come to restore or bring back what was lost.

If the Comforter needed to “remind” the disciples, then some teachings were at risk of being lost. This undermines the idea of a perfectly preserved tradition.

The Gospel of John itself (John 21:25) states: “There are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

This is a clear admission that the Gospel accounts are selective, not comprehensive.

If the Gospel writers themselves admit that they did not record everything Jesus did or said, then the Comforter’s role of “reminding” becomes even more significant: the Comforter will restore what was not recorded, ensuring the essential teachings were not lost.

The text of John 14:26 is an admission that:

  • Jesus taught more than what is recorded.
  • The disciples were at risk of forgetting what he taught.
  • The Comforter would bring back what was lost.

This is exactly what Allah (swt) says:

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

3rd. Christian objection.

“Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.” (John 16:7)

“But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: (John 15:26)

The Christian objection is sound. Why would Jesus be the one to send the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw). However, as we saw from (John 14:26) it is the father who will send not Jesus. So which is it?

4th Chrisitan objection.

“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever.” (John 14:16)

The problem comes from the word ‘forever’. The Christian will object and ask if the advocate is a reference to the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) how is he with the believers forever?

This is answered by a number of ways.

“To the roots of the mountains I went down, to the land whose bars closed upon me forever. Yet you brought up my life from the pit, O Lord my God.” (Jonah 2:6)

Jonah was not literally in the land of the dead forever; “forever” means for an extended, indefinite period.

“I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” (Matthew 28:20)

Jesus is not physically present but Christians could say they feel his presence or that his teachings live on with them. The same can be said of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw).

It seems rather strange that the other Gospel writers have no mention about this coming Paraklete. Lastly, their remains some curiosity in the retention of the word Paraclete in the Hebrew and Aramaic translations.

The Qur’an 61:6 and the use of a type of literary device to that would be akin to an enthymeme.

“And when Jesus, son of Mary, said: O’ children of Israel, surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being AHMAD.” (Qur’an 61:6)

Do you ever wonder why the verse does not say: ”Giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being MUHAMMED?”

Muhammed comes from the triconsonantal Semitic root H-M-D.

The spelling of the word is different but the meaning is the same.

  1. Jesus (as) did not speak Arabic and so what ever he did say would be in Hebrew or Aramaic and not Greek nor Arabic.
  2. What ever prophecy Jesus (as) made would either be ‘Ahmad’ or the equivalent of it’s meaning.
  3. Allah (swt) by using the word ‘Ahmad’ instead of the word ‘Muhammed’ has given us a type of enthymeme by which those interested can investigate the matter. That is to say it is possible that the scribes

“But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places (yuharifuna l-kaima ‘an mawadi’ihi) and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others).” (Qur’an 5:13)

What may have been the word in Hebrew or Aramaic?

In the above text we can see the word transliterated as: Mahamaddim. They have translated the word as description ‘lovely.

In the Orthodox Jewish Bible they have put the transliterated word as: Machamaddim and have translated it as: (altogether desirable)

Source for the the text below: (https://www.biblestudytools.com/ojb/shir-hashirim/5.html)

Again a different translation this time we get: “wholly desirable” and we can see that the is a masculine noun pronounced as Machmad. The word origin for this is chamad.

By the way do yourself a favour and copy those Hebrew words and put them in Google translate and listen to how they sound.

Notice that the word in Hebrew is to be desired, delighted in, to covet, to be pleased with, and than look at the Arabic equivalent that they give! With its meaning to praise to eulogize.

Look at the Arabic word that they give.

This in and of itself is not a proof, but it is an intriguing piece of evidence that may point to a preserved remnant of the original prophecy.

May Allah (swt) open the eyes and hearts of those who are sincere.

For further reading on topics in relation to Christianity you may want to read the following:

Genesis chapter 3 separates Islam and Christianity.
The degenerate and disgraced Christians who attacked Islam and Muslims.
The Way of Life that existed before Christianity and Judaism.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

17 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

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

June 7, 2026 · 12:23 pm

How Do Christians Deal With Those Whom the Message of Christianity Never Reached?

“Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

﷽ 

We have already seen how the Ibadi and Ash’ari schools deal with the Ahl Al Fatrah.

That was covered in our article here:

Ash’ari Aqidah & Ibadi Aqidah on Ahl Al Fatrah

The above article shows us how Islam is a very cohesive, coherent and robust understanding of dealing with those people (that are claimed) not to receive a Messenger/Prophet.

We also have shown that Allah (swt) clearly mentioned that he set rites up for all peoples and that he has indeed sent a Prophet to all peoples.

Christianity, the religion that has a vision of God wherein Prophets and Messengers were not sent to all mankind has very often struggled to deal with this.

They have no concept of the fitra, instead all mankind is fallen, (We know you are not on board with this interpretation Church of Christ-Campbellites) so, We will make the exception.

To us this very question exposes the theological and philosophical mess of Christianity.

As regards Christianity. Is this a huge theological problem for Christianity?

Well, this would depend on the type of Christian that you ask. Not Surprising many Christians have a very straight forward response to this. That is that if God wanted the message of the Gospel of Christ Jesus to reach those people he would have. Therefore if they are damned to eternity in hellfire this is the will of God.

Mostly Christians of the Calvinist persuasion are quite o.k with the idea of people in hellfire forever for never even hearing about Jesus. When Christians ask these questions to their teachers it is because they are struggling with the justice of God in such scenarios.

For example:

John MacArthur whom is a believer in hard determinism was very to the point. You can’t receive salvation except through the name of Christ. Yet he goes on to describe the self evident nature of God, but stops short of telling us how exactly this connects a person to the Gospel?

Let’s think for example people who lived all over the world con-current to the first 15 minutes after the alleged death of Jesus on a Patibulum. It is not conceivable that the gospel reached these people.

Than John MacArthur goes on to categorically rebuke other Christian views that would try to claim such people are saved (a part from Christ Jesus) in the same way people were in the TNCH (Christians call it -the Old Testament).

McArthur also quoted the following text:

“In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31)

So now we will see how top Christian Apologist William Lane Craig deals with this question.

Now for those who do not know William Lane Craig does not believe that God wills and makes people to do evil (like Calvinist do); rather, he is a Molinist.

We will link to Dr. Craig’s article so you can get an understanding of this view:

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/molinism-vs.-calvinism

Skip to 0:10 seconds to avoid hearing music in the intro.


“Now that does not mean that someone can be saved apart from the work of Christ. What it would mean is that the benefits of Christ death could be applied to someone without his conscious knowledge of Christ.” -William Lane Craig

Prima Qur’an comments: So just let that sink in! WoW! You really wonder how this camp will deal with things like:

“If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9)

Now, we could counter by mentioning the mute. However, even than it can be seen that this is a conscious choice.

Than William Lane Craig gives the store away to atheist when he proclaims:

“Rather than live up to his moral law they plunge themselves into immorality and degeneracy and so find themselves condemned before God just on the basis of his general revelation in nature and conscious.” -William Lane Craig

No Craig, stop trying to sell Sam Harris’ book, the Moral Landscape. God is known via reason but moral code and moral law is not known except via revelation! -i.e revealed scriptures, prophets, messengers. Tell us do you believe that morality is known a part from these?

Natural revelation never tells them that God came as a man, lived a sinless perfect life and fulfilled all the righteous demands of the Law, died upon a cross to atone for His people’s sins, and rose from the dead three days later for their justification.

“For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, that is, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what he has made. As a result, people are without excuse.” ‭‭(Romans‬ ‭1‬:‭18‬-‭20‬)

So Craig did not really answer that woman’s question at all. He waffled. It is possible but in reality not likely at all.

So the question of God’s justice in regard to the Ahl Al Fatrah remains.

We have heard a pastor once say, “If someone can get into heaven without knowing Christ, then the worst thing you can do to them is tell them about Jesus.”

This same logic applies to the Ash’ari creed who believe that people who never heard about Islam enter into heaven no questions asked.

The last thing on Earth we would want would be the spread of the teachings of Islam, if that were the case!

In one conference of Calvinist it seems one of the Pastors had a heightened sense of the racial distributions of God’s mercy.

In other words why are certain demographics seemingly favoured by God to hear the truth?

People groups , Native Americans, Polynesian peoples, Sub Sahara Africans, Chinese
pretty much most of them died not knowing Christ Jesus at all. So surely God has shown great mercy to Hebrews, Caucasians, and People of the Middle East in general.

We could have titled this article: The Scandal of Christian Exclusivism: God’s Favor or Geographic Lottery?

Calvinists have no satisfying answer for why God’s sovereign will seems to align so neatly with geography and ethnicity.

“I have no answer to the question why uh vast numbers and not just in very definable people groups that we mentioned in this question but there are people in your street who’ve actually never heard of Christ. Never heard a presentation of the Gospel. It’s not just people groups. There are people who live in contemporary America.”

@7:03 “And I think we need to be very careful about approaching any issue and in particularly this one with a premise that God must act in this way. God is not bound to show mercy to any individual or any collection of individuals. So.So God is not bound to show mercy to an individual but he’s not bound to show mercy to a particular people group either.”

As Muslims we can agree that God is not bound to show mercy to anyone for that matter but what Muslims would assert is that God has asserted that he sent a messenger to every people.

Muslims would also assert that God would not expect every to make a fist with their hand and than punish someone born without hands for failing to do so. This is essentially the Christian view. The Christian view is essentially God creating goats with no wings and than cursed them for not flying.

Christians do have text like the following:

“Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:4)

Well it would stand to reason he would have some type of system to deliver on this. Eventually to deal with this dilemma some Christians had to come up with a belief in God having three different wills.

  • Decretive will: What God actually decrees (not all saved)
  • Prescriptive will: What God commands (all should believe)
  • Permissive will: What God allows (people to reject)

Such a doctrine is not Sola scriptura. It is theological gymnastics to avoid the plain meaning of the text.

This is theological gymnastics to avoid the plain meaning of the text.

“Indeed, Allah does not wrong the people at all, but it is the people who are wronging themselves.” (Qur’an 10:44)

“Indeed, Allah does not do injustice, [even] as much as an atom’s weight; while if there is a good deed, He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward.” (Qur’an 4:40)

So, as we have seen Christians will quote their sources to support their various positions.

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” (John 3:18)

“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)

“As the Lord said to Nicodemus, Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the spirit, a person will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (John 3:5)

Or is the above statement not so true?

Because this is flatly contradicted by the information we receive in Luke:

“Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43)

So some would argue that an exception is made, or there are situations where there are exceptions. So which one is truly the truth?

But than you have to wonder about the debate around unbaptized babies?

The Catholic Church had to go into a full retreat on this issue, because after further reflection the doctrine is quite dark. Secondly Islam was absolutely demolishing the Catholic Church and continues to do so in the Philippines and in South America over this very doctrine!

https://catholicnews.sg/2022/10/30/where-go-the-souls-of-unbaptised-infants/

If you want to get into the details on the issue we would recommend:

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

The Catholic Church & The Doctrine of Invincible Ignorance. Jesus is not the only way to heaven.

As such it is defined as:

“Invincible ignorance” is a state in which people — such as pagans, non-Christians and children — are ignorant of Christ’s message as laid out in the Gospels not because they refuse to believe, but rather because they’ve not yet had an opportunity to hear and experience it

The Position of the Catholic Church?

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Source: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/847.htm

This teaching is crystal clear that Jesus is not the only way to heaven!

This is extremely devestating in two ways.

First it contradicts much of their sacred text or writings.

It Contradicts Jesus’ Own Words

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already.” (John 3:18)

Second it makes mission work dangerous.

If people can be saved through “invincible ignorance,” then:

  • Those who never hear the Gospel are safer than those who do.
  • Missionaries are potentially damning people by removing their ignorance.
  • The Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) becomes a curse rather than a blessing.

It definitely contradicts what Augustine had stated on the matter.

Right under the section that explitly states:

Chapter 2 [II.] Faith in Christ Not Necessary to Salvation, If a Man Without It Can Lead a Righteous Life

…before the actual preaching of the gospel reaches the ends of all the earth — because there are some remote nations still (although it is said they are very few) to whom the preached gospel has not found its way — what must human nature do…but believe in God who made heaven and earth, by whom also it perceived by nature that it had been itself created, and lead a right life, and thus accomplish His will, uninstructed with any faith in the death and resurrection of Christ? Well, if this could have been done, or can still be done, then for my part I have to say what the apostle said in regard to the law: Then Christ died in vain. Galatians 2:21 For if he said this about the law, which only the nation of the Jews received, how much more justly may it be said of the law of nature, which the whole human race has received, If righteousness come by nature, then Christ died in vain. If, however, Christ did not die in vain, then human nature cannot by any means be justified and redeemed from God’s most righteous wrath— in a word, from punishment — except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ (St Augustine, On Nature and Grace, Chapter 2).

Source: (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm)

There are very deep divides in the Orthodox Church on the issue of people being saved a part from the redeeming nature of Jesus.

God is not the author of confusion, but of peace” (1 Corinthians 14:33)

Some will argue that no one is saved by “ignorance”, meaning that they will be harmed by the additional knowledge of Christ Jesus, or some how saved by the law of nature.

“No one is condemned on the ground of not believing in something they never heard, but on the ground of their sinfulness.”


To which we reply on what consistent basis of justice are they not given the same opportunity to hear the saving gospel?

Indeed why are entire tribes and ethnic groups given over to ruin because of this?

Even than those advocates in the Orthodox Church make exception to this so called “Law of Nature.” Those against Invincible Ignorance will make exception when it comes to the Theotokos (Mother of God) whom they mean to be Mary the Mother of Jesus. The Roman Catholics are with them on the sinless nature of Mary.

They do this to avoid the issue of sin being inherited. Protestants do not make Mary an exception. But then we get into an infinite loop issue that if Mary did not inherit sin, than why not make her father sinless for her to escape the conundrum in the same way Mary is made sinless to escape the conundrum for Jesus.

Protestants have avoided this altogether; namely because little baby fetus Jesus was receiving nourishment from a ‘sinful’ woman. It was her ‘sinful’ body that providing for his sinless body.

The Belief of Jesus descending into hell to save the Old Testament prophets.

“After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits-to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water.” (1 Peter 3:19-20)

Peter once wrote of Paul’s letters:

“There are some things in them that are hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:16).

Meaning Jesus did not keep good on his promise.

“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” (John 16:13)

Meaning that the Holy Spirit did not make these scriptures clear.

However, we can say the same thing of Peter’s letters and especially the above text.

This rather ambiguous text of ((1 Peter 3:19-20) is used by many to say that this is how the Old Testament Prophets eventually were saved. In spite of what you heard about the Prophets in the Old Testament they all went to hell. They have to if everyone who does not believe in Jesus is to be saved. So this doctrine came about.

Even though we have many other text that would contradict this point blank.

“Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God” (Genesis 6:9)

Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe a Non Christian who never confessed faith in Jesus Christ is saved!

John of Damascus said that God freed Trajan from Hell after the prayers of Saint Gregory the Great!

“Further, the Damascene in the same sermon relates that Gregory, while praying for Trajan, heard a voice from heaven saying to him: “I have heard thy voice, and I pardon Trajan; : and of this fact the Damascene adds in the same sermon, “the whole East and West are witnesses. ” Yet it is clear that Trajan was in hell, since “he put many martyrs to a cruel death” [De his qui fide dormierunt]. Therefore the suffrages of the Church avail even for those who are in hell.”

Source: (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5071.htm)

This particular incident comes to us by different ways with some interesting omissions and additions. In one rendition Trajan is physically resurrected since without physical baptism, one who lived after Christ can be saved.

Another view is that a soul can be in hell and be quit of all pain (maybe just roaming around watching everyone else suffer for their sins) who knows what he does in his spare time).

There is a whole book one can read about this idea of Christians saints that could pray for people to be released from hell!

To us it is clear that Christianity does not have a cohesive position on this very important question. The Orthodox, Catholics, & Protestants each seem to have views that once probed ends up causing problems for other doctrinal positions.

The morewe explore and look into the disparate views of the Christian tradition we can’t help but to see how chillingly distant and dark their vision of the divine truly is.

We would not be surprised if one of them ever wrote a treaties entitled: “The Unloved Parts of God.”

“Or like the darkness in a deep sea, covered by waves upon waves, topped by clouds. Darkness upon darkness! If one stretches out their hand, they can hardly see it. And whoever Allah does not bless with light will have no light!” (Qur’an 24:40)

If you think the above is a mess wait until you read how much of a mess their doctrine of salvation is!

Are Christians truly assured and certain of their salvation?

May Allah guide the Ummah!

May Allah forgive the Ummah!

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

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

June 2, 2026 · 6:54 pm

Miscellaneous Subjects

“Alif-Lãm-Mĩm” (Qur’an 2:1)

﷽ 

This section will be miscellaneous information on a wide range of topics. This section does not necessarily reflect the views or attitudes of either the Ibadi school or adherents of the school.

Do note some links are broken. We are in the process of restoring those links.

Allah willing we will continue to update this section and organize it accordingly as well:

THE MERCY, LOVE AND FORGIVENSS OF ALLAH

The Mercy, Love and Forgiveness of Allah

INSPIRATIONAL SHORT CLIPS ABOUT ISLAM TO INSPIRE, MOTIVATE AND CAUSE REFLECTION

Inspirational short clips about Islam to inspire, motivate and cause reflection.

MINI GALLERY AT SULTAN MASJID SINGAPORE

https://primaquran.com/2024/01/24/mini-gallery-at-sultan-mosque-singapore/

THE QUR’AN NEVER INDICATES THAT THE MAJORITY ARE UPON THE TRUTH-EVER.

Does the Qur’an state that the majority are believers and grateful?

ADVISE TO NEW MUSLIM CONVERTS/REVERTS

Advise for new Muslim converts/reverts

CONVERT MUSLIM WOMAN IS ASKED PERSONAL QUESTION(S) BY HER FIANCEE.

Convert Muslim woman is asked personal question by her Fiancée.


THE VALUE OF THE PRAYER IN ISLAM

The Value of the Prayer in Islam

WHY DO WE AS MUSLIMS FACE TOWARDS THE KAABA?

https://primaquran.com/2023/04/01/why-do-we-as-muslims-face-towards-the-kaaba

KHIMAR (HEAD COVERING) IS AN INJUNCTION WITH IN THE QUR’AN

Khimar (Head Covering) is an injunction with in the Qur’an.

WHERE IN THE QUR’AN DOES THE TESTIMONY OF A WOMAN OVER RULE THAT OF A MAN?

https://primaquran.com/2024/06/24/where-in-the-quran-does-the-testimony-of-a-woman-over-rule-that-of-a-man

BLOWING ON KNOTS: SAVING MUSLM MARRIAGES.

Blowing on Knots. Saving Muslim Marriages

REDUNDANT REVELATION? THE QUESTION OF POLYGYNY IN ISLAM

Redundant Revelation? The Question of Polygyny in Islam

THE HYPOCRISY OF BID’I TALAQ: INNOVATED DIVORCES WEIGHED AGAINST THE WISDOM OF THE QUR’AN

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/05/the-hypocrisy-of-bidi-talaq-innovated-divorces-weighed-against-the-wisdom-of-the-quran

ISLAM TEACHES JUSTICE NOT EGALITARIANISM

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/islam-teaches-justice-not-egalitarianism/

SAME SEX MARRIAGES IN LIGHT OF THE QUR’AN

Same Sex Marriages in light of the Qur’an.

APOSTASY.

Those who left Islam.

WILL OIL EVER REALLY RUN OUT?

Will Oil Ever Really Run Out?

THE DINOSAURS NEVER EXISTED?

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/the-dinosaurs-never-existed

THE MEN WHO NEVER BECAME MUSLIMS: THE CASES OF DR. KEITH MOORE & DR. MAURICE BUCAILLE.

https://primaquran.com/2023/01/19/the-men-who-never-became-muslims-the-cases-of-dr-keith-moore-dr-maurice-bucaille/

SUNNISM, IMAMI SHI’I, ZAYDI ARE THEIR PROMOTION OF SUPERIOR BLOOD LINES, CLANS, AND TRIBES BASED UPON THE QUR’AN AND SUNNAH?

TRIBALISM AND ISLAM

Tribalism and Islam

BUT THEY ARE DESCENDANTS OF PROPHETS

But they are descendants of Prophets!

THE IBADI VIEW: BEING FROM THE QURAYSH IS NOT NECESSARY FOR LEADERSHIP

The Ibadi view: Being from the Quraysh is not necessary for leadership.

THE IBADI SCHOOL REFUTES THE CLAIMS OF ARAB SUPERIORITY.

The Ibadi school refutes the claims of Arab superiority.

AFTAB MALIK: THE BROKEN CHAIN-PREPERATION FOR ARAB RACIAL SUPERIORITY IN ISLAM?

https://primaquran.com/2025/01/23/aftab-malik-the-broken-chain-preparation-for-arab-racial-superiority-in-islam/

SOME SHI’A VIWES ON THE ORIGINS OF BLACK PEOPLE

Some Shi’i views on the Origin of Black People: Blatant Racism

WHO EVER SAYS THE PROPHET IS BLACK KILL HIM

Who ever says the Prophet was black is killed!

DOGS ARE PURE IN ISLAM, ACCORDING TO THE QUR’AN

Dogs are pure in Islam, according to the Qur’an.

DASTARDLY BOWL LICKING DOGS AND THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF SOME MUSLIMS

https://primaquran.com/2020/09/12/dastardly-bowl-licking-dogs-and-the-thought-process-of-some-muslim

MATTER: THE OTHER NAME FOR ILLUSION.

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/05/matter-the-other-name-for-illusion/

ATHEISM BETWEEN LAWRENCE KRAUSS AND ELON MUSK.

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/atheism-between-lawrence-krauss-and-elon-musk/

KETO, PRIMAL, VEGAN, VEGETARIANISM & ISLAM

https://primaquran.com/2023/05/04/keto-primal-vegan-vegetarianism-islam/

ALIENS, UFO’s, THE JINN & ISLAM

Aliens, UFO’s, The Jinn & Islam

THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE WAS BETRAYED BY DESCENDANTS OF PROPHET MUHAMMED (SAW)

The Ottoman Empire was betrayed by the so called descendants of Prophet Muhammed (saw).

COLLECTION OF ARTICLES ON SUFISM

Tazkiyah al-Nafs/ Sufism /Tasawwuf

SHAYKH HAMZA YUSUF: COLLECTION OF ARTICLES

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/shaykh-hamza-yusuf-collection-of-articles/

THE QUR’AN IS SUBLIME.

The Qur’an is sublime. Understanding 18:79-81

DHUL AL-QARNAYN: THE NOTHINGBURGER

Dhul al-Qarnayn: The nothingburger

THE QUR’AN AND THE SETTING OF THE SUN IN A MURKY SPRING

The Qur’an and the Setting of the Sun in a Murky Spring

NOTHING CAN CHANGE THE WORDS OF ALLAH.

Nothing Can Change the Words of Allah

THE SO CALLED SATANIC VERSES: (QISSA GHARANIQ-THE STORY OF THE INTERMEIDARY CRANES)

https://primaquran.com/2024/10/26/the-so-called-satanic-verses-qissa-gharaniq-the-story-of-intermediary-cranes/

CLAIMS OF APOCRYPHAL SOURCES IN THE QUR’AN?

Claims of apocryphal sources in the Qur’an?

QUR’AN CONTRADICITON? WHAT BURDENS DO WE BEAR?

Qur’an contradiction? What burdens do we bear?

ABU LAHAB: WEAK ARGUMENT UESD BY MUSLIMS TO PROVE ISLAM

https://primaquran.com/2024/05/24/abu-lahab-weak-argument-used-by-muslims-to-prove-islam/

WILL THE DAJJAL BE A PERSON?

https://primaquran.com/2024/10/28/will-the-dajjal-be-a-person/

THE MUSLIM WORLD LEAGUE DAJJAL LOGO: IN NEED OF BETTER OPTICS?

https://primaquran.com/2024/08/14/the-muslim-world-league-dajjal-logo-in-need-of-better-optics/

DO WE THINK ITS WEIRD THAT SAUDI ARABIA PUT A STATUE (IDOL) OF THE MORNING STAR (VENUS) OR SATAN JUST NORTH OF MEDINA?

https://primaquran.com/2024/09/29/do-i-think-its-weird-that-saudi-arabia-put-a-statue-idol-of-the-morning-star-venus-or-satan-just-north-of-medina/

OUR THOUGHTS ON PUBLIC DEBATES

Should Muslims debate Jews and Christians?

IBADI TRADERS OF BILAD AL-SUDAN -JASON VAN RIEL

The Ibāḍī Traders of Bilād al-Sūdān -Jason van Riel

AL-ISTIQAMA INSTITUTION FOR QUR’AN & ITS SCIENCES IN LIBYA

Al-Istiqama Institution for Qur’an & Its Sciences in Libya

ISTIQAAMA MUSLIM ORGANISATION GHANA

https://primaquran.com/2025/01/05/istiqaama-muslim-organisation-ghana/

NEITHER SHIA NOR SUNNI: AN INERVIEW WITH A MOZABITE

https://primaquran.com/2024/02/05/neither-shia-nor-sunni-an-interview-with-a-mozabite-anthony-t-fiscella/

DR. KHALID ABDULLAH TARIQ AL-MANSOUR: INTELLECTUAL JUGGERNAUT AND TREASURE OF THE UMMAH.

https://primaquran.com/2024/12/29/dr-khalid-abdullah-tariq-al-mansour-intellectual-juggernaut-and-treasure-of-the-ummah/

SULAYMAN IBN DAWUD IBN BASAID IBN YUSUF A PAN ISLAMIST IBADI SCHOLAR.

https://primaquran.com/2024/11/13/sulayman-ibn-dawud-ibn-basaid-ibn-yusuf-a-pan-islamist-ibadi-scholar/

THE SCHOLARS OF ISLAM: BETWEEN BLIND ALLEGIANCE AND UNGAURDED DISDAIN

https://primaquran.com/2025/01/07/the-scholars-of-islam-between-blind-allegiance-and-unguarded-disdain/

G.I JOE A REAL AMERICAN HERO

https://primaquran.com/2023/09/27/g-i-joe-a-real-american-hero/

ACCORDING TO THE IBADI SCHOOL: SMOKING IS HARAM

According to the principles of the Qur’an smoking is Haram.

PRAGMATIC VIEW ON MUSLIM UNITY IN THE FACE OF A COMMON FOE- BY USTADH SHIBLI ZAMAN

https://primaquran.com/2024/01/11/pragmatic-view-on-muslim-unity-in-the-face-of-a-common-foe-shibli-zaman/

MUSLIMS SHOULD BOYCOTT STARBUCKS IN SPITE OF PALESTINE (INCLUDING MADHKALIS)

https://primaquran.com/2023/11/16/muslims-should-boycott-starbucks-in-spite-of-palestine-including-madhkalis/

4D CHESS? SHOULD PALESTINE JOIN THE ZIONIST ENTITY?

https://primaquran.com/2023/11/14/4d-chess-should-palestine-join-the-zionist-entity/

WHAT ARE THE SIGNS THAT WE HAVE FAITH?

What are the signs that we have faith?

TWO AI BOTS HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE IBADI SCHOOL.

Two AI bots have a conversation about the Ibadi school.

Insh’Allah this will continue to be updated. Allah-willing.

THE FOUR TYPES OF PUNISHMENTS EVERY MUSLIM SOULD BE AWARE OF.

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

WHAT DOES SHAYKH UTHMAN IBN FAROOQ REALLY BELIEVE? MURDERERS AND RAPIST GOING TO HEAVEN?

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

MONOTHEISM (TAWHID) ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR HIS DEEDS TO BE ACCEPTED.

Monotheism (Tawhid) alone is not sufficient for his deeds to be accepted.

HEAVEN IS FOR THE RIGHTEOUS SOLEY! -HIS EMINENCE SHAYKH MASOUD AL-MIQBALI.

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

WHO KNEW THE DREAM BETTER? IBN AL-ARABI VS PROPHET IBRAHIM (AS) -AND WHY MUSTAFA AKYOL GETS IT WRONG.

Who Knew the Dream Better? Ibn al-Arabi vs. Prophet Ibrahim (as) – and Why Mustafa Akyol Gets It Wrong.

THE QUESTION OF SLAVERY & MILK AL YAMIN IN ISLAM.

The Question of Slavery & Milk Al Yamin In Islam.

WHY HAJJ IS SO IMPORTANT IN ISLAM. WHY MUSLIMS SHOULD NOT DELAY THE HAJJ. SHAYKH HATIM & FIRDAUS AZIZ.

Why Hajj is so Important in Islam. Why Muslims should not delay the Hajj. Shaykh Hatim & Firdaus Aziz

THE VIRTUE OF THE FIRST TEN DAYS OF DHU AL-HIJJAH.

The virtue of the first ten days of Dhu al-Hijjah

ARE MUSLIMS TO DRINK CAMEL URINE?

Are Muslims to drink camel urine?

The WAY OF LIFE THAT EXISTED BEFORE CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM.

The Way of Life that existed before Christianity and Judaism.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

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

June 1, 2026 · 9:18 pm

The amazing historicity and eyewitness testimony of the Christian faith.

“The Jews and Christians each claim that none will enter Paradise except those of their own faith. These are their desires. Reply, “Produuce your proof if what you say is true.” (Qur’an 2:111)

﷽ 

In this blog post we look into the fascinating eyewitness testimony of the Christian faith as well as its historical corraboration.

First we start with what Christians call the apostle Paul.

“This is the third time I am coming to you. “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (2 Corinthians 13:1)

“One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” (Deuteronomy 19:15)

The context and intention behind his application are specific:

  • The Original Context: In Deuteronomy, this law was designed to protect the accused in an Israelite court from false accusations, requiring physical or corroborating human witnesses for a criminal conviction.
  • Paul’s Application: Paul is applying this principle to establish the validity of his apostolic authority.

Paul’s biodata.

He has no provable biography.

We have no idea who Paul’s parents are.

Was Paul recorded in a Roman census?

We have no record of this.

Paul has no provable connection to Prophet Abraham alayhi s-salām 

Paul has no provable connection to the tribe of Benjamin.

“ I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.” (Romans 11:1)

“Circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee.” (Philippians 3:5)

This is a claim without evidence.

  • No genealogy is provided.
  • No Benjaminite registry exists to verify it.
  • No contemporary document outside his letters corroborates it.

In the Hebrew Bible, tribal identity was patrilineal and documented. Paul gives no father’s name, no clan, no ancestral town in Benjaminite territory (e.g., Gibeah, Mizpah). It is an unverifiable claim.

Ask a Christian, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Anglican to give you Paul’s genealogy traceable back to Benjamin. They can’t!

Paul and his name.

“ Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said,…” (Acts 13:9)

If we say, “Paul says his name is Paul,” that proves nothing. Anyone can name themselves. Without external verification (e.g., Roman census records, contemporary letters from others, a tombstone, etc.), it’s just self-testimony.

“Studied under Gamaliel” – no evidence from Gamaliel.

“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.” (Acts 22:3)

Gamaliel was a famous rabbi (Acts 5:34–40). He is mentioned in later Jewish tradition (Mishnah). But:

  • Gamaliel never mentions Paul.
  • No rabbinic text lists Paul as a student of Gamaliel.
  • No contemporary records from Gamaliel’s academy name Paul.

Acts 22:3 is the only source for this claim. Again, Paul (or Luke writing for Paul) is the sole witness. By the legal principle Paul cited, this is inadmissible.

What is the proof that anyone met the ‘historical’ Paul?

Paul mentioned outside of his own writings?

“Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Beyond the fact that the authorship of 2 Peter is highly disputed there is no mention about meeting Paul here.

If we grant that it was indeed written by Peter, the passage doesn’t mention anything about meeting Paul in person, it just mentions Paul’s letters. So it’s a possible witness that Peter believed a person named Paul wrote some letters.

Then we have the following claim in Acts.

“When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus.” (Acts 9:26-27)

This is contradicted by the following:

“I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.” (Galatians 1:17)

So in this instance you have Paul’s own testimony versus a statement made about him some many years later.

Christianity demands I bet my soul on ONE guy, who claims to have met Jesus on the road to Damascus, with an undisclosed number of anonymous witnesses, witnesses who never wrote anything. That is a hard pass!

Paul’s own letters—which are our primary sources—never mention the Damascus road experience with companions present at all. He speaks of his encounter in intensely personal terms, and the elaborate narrative with Ananias, the blinding, and the companions only appears in Acts, written by someone else decades later.

No one witnessed Paul’s “vision”.

In Acts 9, the men traveling with Paul heard a voice but saw no one (Acts 9:7). In Acts 22, Paul says they saw the light but did not hear the voice (Acts 22:9). These are contradictory accounts of what the witnesses experienced. But crucially:

  • None of those men saw Jesus.
  • None of them testified to Paul’s claim that Jesus appeared to Paul.
  • They never wrote anything, and we don’t even know their names.

Who witnessed Paul receiving revelation from Jesus Christ?

“I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:12)

Paul claims that he is receiving his revelation direct from Jesus rather than from human teachers who actually knew Jesus.

Who witnessed this?

Who witnessed Paul receving his revelation?

What condition did these witnesses describe?

1 Corinthians 15:3–8 :The testimony of Paul under the microscope.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that he appeared (ōphthē – ὤφθη) to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.
6 After that, he appeared (ōphthē) to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he appeared (ōphthē) to James, then to all the apostles,
8 and last of all he appeared (ōphthē) to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Christians often quote this section of the New Testament as if it is some impressive tour de force, about historical Christianity often do not realize how historically weak the following claims are.

Paul claims “That he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” That is not eye witness testimony. That is an appeal to contested interpretations of the Tanakh.

Paul claims “and that he appeared (ōphthē) to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve.” The New Testament contains two letters attributed to Peter (1 Peter and 2 Peter). In these writings, he (Peter) does not explicitly claim to have seen the resurrected Jesus.

Then to the twelve.

Douay-Rheims (Catholic): “And that he was seen by Cephas, and after that by the eleven.” (Note: eleven, not twelve)

King James Version: “And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.”

Codex Bezae & some Old Latin manuscripts: Also read “eleven” instead of “twelve.”

“then to the twelve” is also incorrect. There was no living group called “the Twelve” at that time. After Judas’s suicide and before Matthias, they were eleven. after Judas died and before Matthias was chosen (Acts 1:15–26), the group was technically eleven.

Some manuscripts (Codex Bezae, some Old Latin) -Douay Rheims says eleven. So if you are Catholic we can let you off the hook (this time).

“After that, he (ōphthē) appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep”

More than 500! Most of whom are still living?!!

What are their names Paul?

What did they write?

Where is their testimony?

Ask a Christian, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Anglican to give you the names of these 500. Ask them to tell what those 500 wrote?

No early church father ever cites a single one of these 500 by name.

No hostile witness (e.g., Celsus, Porphyry, Lucian) ever says: “I checked with those 500 and they denied it.”

It’s an unfalsifiable claim, not a verifiable one. In any court of law, “I have 500 witnesses but I won’t tell you who they are” would be laughed out of the room.

“Then he (ōphthē)appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”

Where does James claim in his book to have seen the resurrected Jesus?

“and last of all he (ōphthē) appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born” Paul uses that same word “ὤφθη (ōphthē) Paul uses the same verb for his own “vision” on Damascus road (1 Cor 15:8 – “as to one abnormally born”) and for the appearances to Peter, the Twelve, 500, James.

Paul uses the identical verb for his own visionary experience and for the others he mentioned. In Greek, no distinction is made in the text between a physical, bodily resurrection appearance and a visionary one. That is a theological inference, not a linguistic one.

Seeing that Paul did not meet the historical Jesus but only claimed to have saw him in a vision then Paul had no way of distinguishing his vision from theirs, so we cannot trust that theirs was physical either!

If Paul’s appearance was visionary, and he uses the same verb for the others, the burden is on the apologist to prove theirs was physical—not on us to prove it wasn’t. And they cannot, because no independent witness describes what Peter or James or the 500 saw in physical terms!

We have no independent attestation from any of those 500, no names, no writings. Paul’s appeal to “most are still alive” is rhetorically powerful but historically unverifiable!

There are no independent witnesses to the resurrection appearance Paul claims. Paul is bearing witness for himself — which Deuteronomy 19:15 and 2 Corinthians 13:1 explicitly forbid as sufficient evidence.

After wading through the works of apologists like Gary Habermas, Josh McDowell, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Lee Strobel, and Gleason Archer, one comes to realize that the entire enterprise is nothing but gobbledygook.

Major Premise (Paul’s own stated rule).

“A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” (Deuteronomy 19:15, quoted by Paul in 2 Corinthians 13:1)

Formalized:
For any claim to be accepted as legally or factually established, there must be at least two independent, corroborating witnesses who are not the accused or the sole interested party.

Minor Premise (Paul’s claim)

Paul claims that Jesus appeared to him (1 Corinthians 15:8), that he received his gospel by revelation from Jesus (Galatians 1:12), and that this establishes his apostolic authority and the truth of Jesus’ resurrection.

Formalized:
Paul’s core claims (resurrection appearance, divine revelation, apostolic authority) rest entirely on:

  1. His own self-testimony (his letters).
  2. Anonymous, later, internally contradictory accounts (Acts).
  3. Unnamed, unverifiable “500” witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:6) who left no written testimony.
  4. No independent, identifiable, contemporaneous witness who saw what Paul claims.

(Applying the rule to Paul’s case)

RequirementDoes Paul meet it?
Two or more witnessesNo. Paul is the primary witness for his own vision/revelation.
Witnesses not identical with the accusedNo. The accused (Paul) is testifying for himself.
Witnesses who can be named, examined, or cross-referencedNo. The 500 are unnamed. Acts’ author is anonymous and not contemporaneous.
Independent corroboration of the claimed eventNo. No one else claims to have seen Jesus appear to Paul.
Testimony consistent across witnessesNo. Acts 9 vs. Acts 22 disagree on what the companions heard/saw. Galatians contradicts Acts on the Jerusalem visit.

Conclusion.

P1: According to Paul (citing Deuteronomy 19:15 and 2 Corinthians 13:1), no matter is to be established except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.

P2: A witness, to be valid, must be independent of the person making the claim, identifiable, and capable of providing corroborating testimony.

P3: Paul’s claim to have received revelation from the risen Jesus is supported only by:

  • His own self-testimony (letters),
  • Anonymous, later, contradictory narratives (Acts),
  • Unnamed, unverifiable, non-testifying “500” (1 Corinthians 15:6).

P4: None of these constitute two or three independent, identifiable, corroborating witnesses under the standard Paul himself invokes.

C: Therefore, by Paul’s own stated legal principle, his testimony is insufficient to establish the matter of Jesus’ resurrection appearance to him, his divine revelation, or his apostolic authority.

This is the historicity and eye witness testimony that the Christian faith hinges upon.

The belief in Paul and his testimony hinges upon self claims. Christians inform us that Jesus is reported to have said:

“If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true.” (John 5:31)

The theological trap for Christians.

If a Christian accepts John 5:31 as Scripture they now face an insoluble problem:

  • Either John 5:31 applies universally (including to Paul), in which case Paul’s self-witness is invalid.
  • Or John 5:31 does not apply universally, in which case Jesus’ own saying is not a binding principle—undermining the authority of the Gospel of John itself!

There is no consistent position where:

  • John 5:31 is true,
  • Paul’s self-witness is sufficient,
  • And the standard is applied fairly.

If Christianity’s central resurrection claim depends on Paul’s testimony, and Paul’s testimony fails his own test, then the honest inquirer cannot be faulted for rejecting Christianity outright.

You may also be interested in reading the following:

Paul The Anti Christ
Text clearly show Jesus is not God and the Bible does not understand human reproduction.

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

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

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

May 31, 2026 · 8:19 am

Claims of apocryphal sources in the Qur’an?

“That is from the news of the unseen which We reveal to you. And you were not with them when they cast their pens as to which of them should be responsible for Mary. Nor were you with them when they disputed.”(Qur’an 3:44)

﷽ 

“This is the Book in which there is no doubt, a guide for the righteous. Those who believe in the unseen, and perform the prayers, and give from what We have provided for them. And those who believe in what was revealed to you, and in what was revealed before you, and are certain of the Hereafter.” (Qur’an 2:3-4)

The Qur’an is a book of which there is no doubt. It is for those who believe in the unseen. It is for those who are certain in the life to come. It is for those who believe in what was revealed before the Blessed Prophet (saw).

Those who are skeptical of those points will quite naturally arrive at different conclusions. So that is of no consequence for the believer.

“As for those who persist in disbelief, it is the same whether you warn them or not—they will never believe. Allah has sealed their hearts and their hearing, and their sight is covered. They will suffer a tremendous punishment.” (Qur’an 2:6-7)

Now, historians and orientalists cannot speak of the supernatural as these are matters of belief. They are beyond their point of historical investigation. However, we are always thrilled when we find historians and Orientalists corroborating the testimony of narratives in the Qur’an by finding manuscripts or parchments of information that, though not verbatim, closely mimic what Allah (swt) has revealed before. This is the understanding of the believer.

Do we find some information from various cultures that preceded the coming of the Blessed Prophet (saw) that seems to corroborate the beliefs of Islam? Yes! That is not scary! That is exciting! 

Recall what Allah (swt) himself informed us of:

“We surely sent a messenger to every community, saying, “Worship Allah and shun false gods.” But some of them were guided by Allah, while others were destined to stray. So travel throughout the land and see the fate of the deniers!” (Qur’an 16:36)

Remember we are not responsible for the conclusions or perceptions of others.

If we look at the above graph. We can see that in block B the apparent (the dhahir) is that there are parchments, manuscripts, scrolls, oral traditions, inscriptions etc. that come before the Qur’an. However, when we look at block B, the haqiqah (the reality) is that Allah’s knowledge of what really happened precedes the information in B. Because of that reality, what is in C (The Qur’an) actually precedes the information in B. This is precisely why this hobbyhorse of orientalist and those who use the historical critical method is of absolutely no consequence for the believing Muslim.

We Muslims have been the first critics of our own sources. The clash of historical narratives between the Ibadi, Sunni and Shi’a is proof positive of this. The grading of the ahadith and the mention of variants in the transmission of the Qur’an have not come from people who lost faith, agnostics or atheists. They came from us, as believers. Subhan’Allah!

These other Johnny Come Lately types, HCM, etc., welcome to the party! 

History and Miracles.

We don’t believe that miracles are historical. This does not mean that we do not believe that miracles did not happen. We just don’t believe that history can capture them. 

Case in point: An Indian king, Cheraman Perumal, was reported to have seen the moon split. History can report such data, but it does not necessarily confirm nor interpret the data. 

This particular entry is directed towards Christians. It is rather shameful that they have taken the approach that they have in these matters. Given that they too claim to believe in the unseen. They claim to believe in a Creator that can narrate past events that present people were not privy to.

“Then she brought him to her people, carrying him. They said, “O Mary, you have certainly done a thing unprecedented. O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste.”But she pointed to the babe. They said: “How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?” He said: “I am indeed a servant of Allah: He has given me revelation and made me a prophet; And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I will be and has enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live; He has made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable; So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)”! Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.”(Qur’an 19:27-34)

“When Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, remember My favor upon you and upon your mother when I supported you with the Pure Spirit and you spoke to the people in the cradle and in maturity; and [remember] when I taught you writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and when you designed from clay like the form of a bird with My permission, then you breathed into it, and it became a bird with My permission, and you healed the blind and the leper with My permission; and when you brought forth the dead with My permission; and when I restrained the Children of Israel from [killing] you when you came to them with clear proofs and those who disbelieved among them said, “This is not but obvious magic.” (Qur’an 5:110)

“And a messenger to the Children of Israel, who will say, ‘Indeed I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I design for you from clay like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by permission of Allah. And I cure the blind and the leper, and I give life to the dead – by permission of Allah. And I inform you of what you eat and what you store in your houses. Indeed in that is a sign for you, if you are believers.” (Qur’an 3:49)

Prima Qur’an comments:

In this article, we will give a response to those Christians who use as a polemic against Muslims the claim that the Qur’an contains apocryphal material in it and therefore cannot be a revelation from Allah (swt).

Now, of course, they will claim that there are more than the three verses of the Qur’an we quoted above as being from apocryphal material. However, we have chosen to focus on these three, as they are most often used by Christian polemicists in debates with Muslims.

Now, personally, we find this particular line of Christian attack against Islam amusing. However, they have to eventually come up with something, right?

Now let’s look at and listen carefully to what these Christians are actually disputing with us about.

*Note*

  1. They are not raising the issue of “healing the blind.“
  2. They are not raising issues against “curing people affected by leprosy.”
  3. They are not raising issues against “give life to the dead.”

They are not disputing these points because they are miracles attributed to Christ Jesus that they find in their accepted canonical text. We will come to the term canonical in a moment.

What they are disputing is:

  1. Jesus speaking as an infant
  2. Jesus creating birds out of clay

Why do they dispute about these miracles?

Because they are not in what they accept to be their canonical text.

So what do the terms apocryphal and canonical mean?

Canonical in relation to Christian scriptures means:

“A biblical canon or canon of scripture is a set of texts (or “books”) which a particular religious community regards as authoritative scripture. … Believers consider canonical books as inspired by God or as expressive of the authoritative history of the relationship between God and his people.”

Apocryphal in relation to Christian scriptures means:

“Biblical or related writings not forming part of the accepted canon of Scripture; or writings or reports not considered genuine.”

So, if a Christian were to come to us and say that these statements in the Qur’an are found in apocryphal sources, the first thing you have to keep in mind that what they are actually saying is that it is apocryphal according to their particular sect of Christianity!

The reason that is important is as follows: As we write this to you on 11/4/2024, Christendom has still not settled the issue of what is and is not apocryphal for the whole of Christianity.

Glaring examples are the following:

Depending on how you want to word it, you could say that the Protestants have 7 fewer books in their version of the Old Testament. Or you could say that the Roman Catholics have 7 extra books in their Old Testament that they accept to be inspired and not apocryphal.

You can read a short write-up about that here:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-to-defend-the-deuterocanonicals

The same can be said for the Orthodox Church.

https://www.oca.org/questions/scripture/canon-of-scripture

Yet the Orthodox Church has additional Old Testament texts (or if you want to be neutral, the Protestants and Catholics have less). The same can be said for the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

The same goes for the New Testament.

What is canonical is an issue that is still not settled among them.

The Chaldean Syrian Church does not accept the following as canon:

2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, & Revelation of John.

In fact, many Protestant Christians have declared Mark 16:8-20, & John 7:53–8:11 to not be canonical.

You have to wonder about the Protestant Christian theologians like John Calvin, Martin Luther, and others who most likely held such passages to be canonical. Yet there are Christians who do not agree with the idea that such passages are non-canonical. These Christians very much believe that Mark 16:8-20, & John 7:53–8:11 are inspired scripture.

So what is the point that is being made?

The point is that when a Christian says to us that those verses in the Qur’an are allegedly taken from apocryphal sources, it is important to understand that:

  1. That though it may be apocryphal for that particular Christian, we can’t say for certain that it was apocryphal for the other Christians.
  2. To keep in mind that what is and is not apocryphal has been and continues to be an internal dispute among Christians.

If the Christian is to counter by saying, “Can you name for me any Christian denomination today that accepts such and such text as canonical?”

The answer to that is: “No we can’t.” Many Christian sects and denominations over time have long perished. Most often the information we do have about them comes from their opponents.

What is also interesting, and we hope Muslims reading this bear in mind, is that no Christian committed to a consistent world view in which the supernatural happens can tell us that:

  1. Jesus did not speak as an infant.
  2. Jesus did not create birds out of clay.

This assertion is also supported by the text they accept as canon. Namely, the following:

“And Jesus did many other miracles in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book: But these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name” (John 20:30-31).

Prima Qur’an comments:

Now this writer, apparently inspired by Allah, felt that it was necessary to inform his readers that Jesus did many other miracles that are not contained within this book.

“There are many more things that Jesus did. If all of them were written down, I suppose that not even the world itself would have space for the books that would be written.” (John 21:25)

Prima Qur’an comments: Though we can all agree this statement is hyperbole, yet it is obvious that the writer knew that there was much more information about Jesus that could be shared.

Now, a possible Christian objection to our understanding of John 20:30-31 is that ‘the many other miracles that are not present in this book‘ could only be a reference to the miracles listed in Matthew, Mark, Luke that are not in the Gospel according to John.

The response to this is that it is simply an assumption.

It could be that:

  1. It could be a reference only to the miracles present in Matthew, Mark, Luke that are not in the Gospel, according to John.
  2. It could be a reference to miracles that are not present in any of those Gospel accounts.
  3. It could be a reference to miracles present in Matthew, Mark, Luke as well as those not present in any Gospel accounts.

Christians could well ask: “Why wouldn’t these accounts of Jesus speaking as an infant or making birds out of clay make it into any of the Four Gospels commonly accepted among all of Christendom?”

Well, we have a clue about that from a text we have already mentioned.

“And Jesus did many other miracles in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name” (John 20:30-31).

Prima Qur’an comments: This Gospel writer is telling us that he is informed about other miracles, but the seven particular miracles that he has selected is so that we may believe that Jesus is:

  1. The Christ
  2. The Son of God
  3. Having eternal life through his name.

So, in the example of this Gospel writer, we have the reasons plainly stated why some miracles were chosen over others. Whereas for the other Gospels it’s hard to discern why they may have left out certain miracles.

For example, John’s Gospel includes the story of Lazarus rising from the dead. I’m puzzled why such an awesome event is not recorded by the other Gospels. Or Jesus turning water into wine is only included in the Gospel, according to John.

Equally puzzling is the following awesome account, which is not recorded by any ancient documents outside of Matthew itself.

“And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, ‘Truly this was the Son of God’” (Matthew. 27:51-54).

There are no extra-biblical sources that mention this awesome event. Surely witnessing such an event would have been worthy of mention somewhere. In fact, this particular text created controversy even among conservative Christians when New Testament scholar and associate professor of theology Michael Licona raised questions about this text.

You can read about where Christians have done some damage control concerning this at the following:

http://www.evidenceunseen.com/theology/scripture/is-matthew-2751-53-historical/

So, again, going back to the Christian inquiry into why some awesome and miraculous events are recorded by some sources and not others, we can only surmise as to the motives behind this.

  1. Why is it that Jesus speaking as an infant is recorded in some sources and not others?
  2. Why is that Jesus making birds out of clay recorded in some sources and not others?
  3. Why is it that the Gospel of Mark is now considered not to have a resurrection narrative, but other sources have it?
  4. Why is it that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead from some sources and not others?
  5. Why is it that Jesus turned water into wine from some sources and not others?
  6. Why is that only the Gospel of Matthew has this narrative about the mass resurrections of people appearing to many in the city?

Another interesting point to note is that, in the case of the Christian tradition that many of us will encounter today, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants of many types, we have 30 years of the life of Christ Jesus that is completely missing altogether!

“Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli.” (Luke 3:23)

So imagine all the people who needed to be healed, those who needed salvation, and what does the current Christian canon tell us about the early life of Jesus? Its silence about the early life of Jesus is awkward, to say the least.

It is honestly both shocking and disappointing that Christians would use these types of arguments against the Qur’an. It absolutely reeks of atheism, smacks of radical skepticism, and is stepped in a worldview bereft of the supernatural.

For us, as Muslims, we are informed about what happened concerning Jesus through divine revelation. As Allah (swt) says to the Blessed Messenger (saw):

“That is from the news of the unseen which We reveal to you. And you were not with them when they cast their pens as to which of them should be responsible for Mary. Nor were you with them when they disputed.” (Qur’an 3:44)

Also, notice that when the Christians make their particular claim about the Qur’an, they more often than not do present the sources which they claim the Qur’an takes the following from:

  1. Speaking as an infant.
  2. Creating birds out of clay.

We also find it interesting that Muslims don’t ask them for their sources.

The Christian polemicist usually has two sources in mind for this:

Those sources are: The Infancy Gospel of Thomas & The Protoevangelium of James.

“This little child Jesus when he was five years old was playing at the ford of a brook: and he gathered together the waters that flowed there into pools, and made them straightway clean, and commanded them by his word alone. 2 And having made soft clay, he fashioned thereof twelve sparrows. And it was the Sabbath when he did these things (or made them). And there were also many other little children playing with him.

“And a certain Jew when he saw what Jesus did, playing upon the Sabbath day, departed straightway and told his father Joseph: Lo, your child is at the brook, and he has taken clay and fashioned twelve little birds and has polluted the Sabbath day. 4 And Joseph came to the place and saw: and cried out to him, saying: Why are you doing these things on the Sabbath, which it is not lawful to do? But Jesus clapped his hands together and cried out to the sparrows and said to them: Go! and the sparrows took their flight and went away chirping. 5 And when the Jews saw it they were amazed, and departed and told their chief men that which they had seen Jesus do.”

Source: (Infancy Gospel of Thomas Chapter 2:1-5)

Prima Qur’an Comments:

This narrative speaks about Jesus creating 12 birds. The emphasis on the number 12 is there twice. This must relate to the 12 disciples. Whereas in the Qur’an we find no mention of this.

“Indeed I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I design for you from clay like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by permission of Allah.” (Qur’an 3:49)

There is no mention of Jesus doing this act on the Sabbath Day. There is no mention of Jesus creating 12 birds. It is interesting to note that the Qur’an does not name the number of Jesus’ disciples. Christians have not addressed this.

It would be interesting to know where the writer(s) of the ‘Infancy Gospel of Thomas’ got their information from. The earliest possible date of authorship is 80 A. D to 250 A. D. This is also roughly the time that the date of authorship is ascribed to ‘The Epistle to Titus‘, which is considered canonical by Christians today. These scholars date the epistle from the 80 A. D up to the end of the 250 A. D.

Source: (Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible, p. 662)

“And when Jesus was five years old, there fell a great rain upon the earth, and the boy Jesus walked up and down through it. And there was a terrible rain, and He collected it into a fish-pond, and ordered it by His word to become clear. And immediately it became so. Again He took of the clay which was of that fish-pond, and made of it to the number of twelve sparrows. And it was the Sabbath when Jesus did this among the boys of the Jews. And the boys of the Jews went away and said to Joseph His father: Behold, thy son was playing along with us, and he took clay and made sparrows, which it was not lawful to do on the Sabbath; and he has broken it. And Joseph went away to the boy Jesus, and said to Him: Why have you done this, which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath? And Jesus opened His hands, and ordered the sparrows, saying: Go up into the air and fly; nobody shall kill you. And they flew, and began to cry out, and praise God Almighty. And the Jews seeing what had happened, wondered, and went away and told the miracles which Jesus had done.”

Source: (Infancy Gospel of Thomas Chapter 4)

Prima Qur’an Comments:

This story is very similar to the one in the ‘Infancy Gospel of Thomas’. What becomes apparent is that both of these sources are relying upon some oral tradition–one in which does not have a chain of transmission.

Now here is what is interesting about the Protoevangelion Jacobi or Infancy Gospel of James. One of the Christian polemicists that used this type of attack upon the Qur’an was himself put in a difficult position in relation to this text.

Observe:

https://ehrmanblog.org/video-bart-ehrman-vs-james-white-debate

@19:20 Ehrman asks: “What other documents are found in P72 as this is a document that resonates with you?”


James responds, “There are some non-canonical documents in P72 …


Ehrman replies, “Right, so I am just wondering about you resonating with this document”. Do you think that the scribe thought what he was copying was scripture?“


James, “Well, I don’t think you can simply jump to the conclusion that, because scribes included books in a single codex that they believed that everything within that codex was necessarily scripture.” There are sorts of works that were considered to be beneficial to people that were included in codices that were not necessarily canonical.”


Ehrman, “Yeah, I just think that it was odd that that particular manuscript was one that you resonated with because it’s the earliest attestation that we have of the protoevangelium jacobi.” (The Infancy Gospel of James) ..

Prima Qur’an Comments:

In other words, you can’t know for certain if the scribe who was copying this text (obviously from an even earlier source) was transcribing what he thought was divine writing! Especially in light of the fact that it is in the same genre of manuscripts that are generally described as “the most significant” papyrus of the New Testament to be discovered so far.

“Now, when the Lord Jesus had completed seven years from His birth, on a certain day He was occupied with boys of His own age. For they were playing among clay, from which they were making images of asses, oxen, birds, and other animals; and each one boasting of his skill, was praising his own work. Then the Lord Jesus said to the boys: The images that I have made I will order to walk. The boys asked Him whether then he was the son of the Creator, and the Lord Jesus made them walk. And they immediately began to leap; and then, when He had given them leave, they again stood still. And He had made figures of birds and sparrows, which flew when He told them to fly, and stood still when He told them to stand, and ate and drank when He handed them food and drink. After the boys had gone away and told this to their parents, their fathers said to them: My sons, take care not to keep company with him again, for he is a wizard: flee from him, therefore, and avoid him, and do not play with him again after this.”

Source: (The Arabic Infancy Gospel of Jesus)

Prima Qur’an Comments:

This text has Jesus not only making birds but apparently donkeys, oxen, and other (undisclosed) animals out of clay. There is an inquiry about him being the son of the Creator. There is no mention of the sabbath or any mention of the animals being of any number.

It’s thought that this Gospel has its origins in Syriac sources in the 5th or 6th century.

“We find what follows in the book of Joseph the high priest, who lived in the time of Christ. Some say that he is Caiaphas. He has said that Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when he was lying in His cradle, said to Mary His mother: “I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom you have brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to you; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world.”

Source: (The Arabic Infancy Gospel of Jesus).

Prima Qur’an Comments:

There is no mention of Mary carrying Jesus as a baby. There is no mention of the people asking Mary where this baby came from. This text has Jesus addressing his mother, the Qur’an has him addressing the people. The text above is filled with Christian doctrine: Jesus is the Son of God, he has a ‘Father’ and he was sent for the salvation of the world.

None of this is found in the account of the Qur’an.

Conclusion:

The attacks that Christian polemicists have leveled towards the Qur’an are the kind one would expect from radical skepticism, and a worldview bereft of the supernatural.

We can see that these sources the Christians point to have important details and radically different theological statements that we do not find at all within the Qur’an.

More telling is that Christians do not even quote these sources, or give the details of the accounts. Many of the people they speak to will not go and double-check the sources for themselves.

The fact that some Christians find these sources apocryphal is of no concern to us as Muslims. We as Muslims do not rely upon them or accept them as revelation either. Our acceptance of what is stated in the Qur’an comes from our faith in it as divine revelation and in what Allah (swt) himself has stated:

“That is from the news of the unseen which We reveal to you. And you were not with them when they cast their pens as to which of them should be responsible for Mary. Nor were you with them when they disputed.” (Qur’an 3:44)

Just as our faith in Jesus as the Messiah, the Word of Allah, and the Son of Mary are not dependent upon any book of the New Testament (even if the whole of Christendom) accepts it as canonical.

Christians themselves cannot totally rule out the possibility of Jesus having spoken as an infant or having given life to the clay birds based upon the following evidence:

“And Jesus did many other miracles in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name” (John 20:30-31).

As well as the fact that the Gospel writers themselves have admitted to leaving out particular miracles that did not suit their desired goals.

“The truth is from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.”(Qur’an 2:147)

“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 (swt) guide the truth seekers!

If you enjoyed this article you may enjoy the following:

Dhul al-Qarnayn: The nothingburger

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

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

May 27, 2026 · 2:13 am

The evidence to reject the virgin birth of Jesus.

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

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

﷽ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

This includes:

Creating Jesus without a father.

Creating a snake from a staff.

Creating life from clay.

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

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

Who created the first cause?

And who created the cause of that cause?

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

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

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

A series of intelligences or spheres that mediate creation.

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

This effectively creates demi-gods—intermediary creators.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps he misspoke here. Or perhaps We misunderstood him.

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

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

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

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

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

From that it follows We may inquire:

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

What are your sources?

Whom are you relying upon for this information?

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

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

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

This claim is being made on the basis of what?

What text?

What source?

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

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

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

You can see the evidence for it being a belief of Muslims here:

The Case for the Virgin birth of Jesus from the Qur’an.

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

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

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

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

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

Well, the beginning of course!

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

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

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

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

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

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

An interesting thought experiment in regards to the available text.

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

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

That would be most intriguing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example is statement here @2:03 with:

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

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

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

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

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

Our comments:

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

The Holy Spirit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Virgin Birth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Qur’an doesn’t quote from Isaiah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mufti Abu Layth continues…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why send an angel in the first place?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where did you get this from?

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

Mufti Abu Layth continues @11:31

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allah (swt) tell us the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argument #1

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

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

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

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

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

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

So that argument fails.

Argument #2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is meant by having a companion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

18 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

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

May 22, 2026 · 12:34 pm

Dismantling the Trinity: Jesus was never the only son.

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

﷽ 

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

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

It Explodes the “Eternal Generation” Framework

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christianity has three last stages until it is completely irrelevant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further evidence.

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

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

The case of John 1:18

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

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

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

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

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

Our second set of evidence from John.

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

Context.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The variant reading of John 9:35

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

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

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

This would include the following text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The evidence of Hebrews 1:5

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

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

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

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

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

This is a quote from

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

This text establishes four points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That Hebrew word in Pslams 2:7 is yalad.

yalad: To bear, bring forth, beget

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The variant reading of Acts 3:26.

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

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

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

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

Jesus was never the only Son of God.

Jesus was never the Son of God from eternity past.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Problem of “Firstborn” (Prōtotokos)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The baptismal announcement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Western Textual Variant for Luke 3:22

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

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

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

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

The case of Matthew.

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

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

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

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

The case of Mark.

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

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

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

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

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

The text of Mark 1:1.

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

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

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

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

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

Luke’s Harmonizing Strategy

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

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

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

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

The text of Acts 8:37.

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

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

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

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

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

Notice his response in the parallel accounts.

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

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

Here is the logical syllogism:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where are all these other names?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

May 18, 2026 · 2:30 pm

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

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

﷽

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

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

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

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

Are Christians out to create more atheists than believers?

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

The law that the Christians Jesus gave.

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

So let us analyze the text.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analaytical breakdown of Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

We can translate the text as:

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

or

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

The definition of na’arah here is:

a girl (from infancy to adolescence).

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

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

Few points of clarification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are many different translations of the text into English.

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

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

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

Notice the text says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look at what it says:

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

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

Terms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples of taphas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Example of anah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So this Christian cited the following text:

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

Such Christians are truly dark individuals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Betrothed vs. unbetrothed — the father’s property distinction

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

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

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

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

That is why:

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

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

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

The Septuagint — biasamenos (by force)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You may also be interested in reading the following:

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

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

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

May 15, 2026 · 1:16 am

Ishmael the Sacrifice: Resolving the Biblical Contradictions Through the Qur’anic Narrative

“Also mention in the Book (the story of) Isma’il: He was (strictly) true to what he promised ( l-waʿdi), and he was a messenger (and) a prophet.” (Qur’an 19:54)

“Then do they not reflect (yatadabbarūna) upon the Qur’an, or are there locks upon [their] hearts?” (Qur’an 47:24)

﷽ 

Allah describes Isma’il as one who was true to what he promised.

We want to give credit first and foremost to Muhammed b. Yusuf b. ‘Isa b. Salih Atfayyish, the luminary of Islam and Shaykh in the Ibadi school. May Allah have mercy on him.

The following is taken from Taysir al-tafsir volume 12, pages 131 to 142 and volume 6 pages 447 to 449.

Every time the Qur’an mentions prophets in a sequence and Ishaq (Isaac) and Isma’il (Ishmael)are mentioned, Isma’il always comes before ishaq.

” Or were you witnesses when death approached Jacob, when he said to his sons, “What will you worship after me?” They said, “We will worship your God and the God of your fathers, Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac one God. And we are Muslims to Him.” (Qur’an 2:133)

“Say, “We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims to Him.” (Qur’an 2:136)

“Or do you say that Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants were  Jews or Christians? Say, “Are you more knowing or is Allah ?” And who is more unjust than one who conceals a testimony he has from Allah ? And Allah is not unaware of what you do.” (Qur’an 2:140)

“Say, “We have believed in Allah and in what was revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Descendants, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims to Him.” (Qur’an 3:84)

“Indeed, We have revealed to you, as We revealed to Noah and the prophets after him. And we revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, the Descendants, Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the Zabur.” (Qur’an 4:163)

“Praise to Allah, who has granted to me in old age Ishmael and Isaac. Indeed, my Lord is the Hearer of supplication.” (Qur’an 14:39)

“So We gave him good news of a forbearing son. And when he reached the age to work with him, he said, ‘O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice you. So tell me what you think.’ He said, ‘O my father, do as you are commanded. You will find me, if Allah wills, among the patient.’ So when they had both submitted themselves, and he laid him on his forehead, We called out to him, ‘O Abraham, you have already fulfilled the vision.’ Indeed, this is how We reward the good-doers. That was truly a revealing test. And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice. And We left for him among later generations [the salutation], ‘Peace be upon Abraham.’ This is how We reward the good-doers. He was truly one of Our faithful servants. We gave him good news of Isaac—a prophet, and one of the righteous.” (Qur’an 37:101-112)

“And surely Our messenger-angels came to Abraham with good news. They greeted him with ‘Peace!’ And he replied, ‘Peace be upon you!’ Then it was not long before he brought them a roasted calf. But when he saw their hands not reaching for it, he found them strange and felt fear of them. They said, ‘Fear not. We have been sent to the people of Lot.’ And his wife was standing by, and she laughed. Then We gave her good news of Isaac, and after Isaac, Jacob. She said, ‘Woe to me! Shall I give birth while I am an old woman and this, my husband, is an old man? Indeed, this is an astonishing thing!’ They said, ‘Are you astonished at the command of Allah? May the mercy of Allah and His blessings be upon you, people of the house. Indeed, He is Praiseworthy, Glorious.'” (Qur’an 11:69-73)

“And [mention] when Abraham said, ‘My Lord, make this city [Mecca] secure and keep me and my sons away from worshipping idols. My Lord, indeed they have led astray many among the people. So whoever follows me, then he is of me; and whoever disobeys me – indeed, You are Forgiving and Merciful. Our Lord, I have settled some of my descendants in an uncultivated valley near Your sacred House, our Lord, that they may establish prayer. So make hearts among the people incline toward them and provide for them from the fruits that they might be grateful.'” (Qur’an 14:35-37)

“And [mention] when We made the House a place of return for the people and a place of security. And take, [O believers], from the standing place of Abraham a place of prayer. And We charged Abraham and Ishmael, [saying], ‘Purify My House for those who perform Tawaf and those who are staying [there] for worship and those who bow and prostrate [in prayer].’ And [mention] when Abraham said, ‘My Lord, make this a secure city and provide its people with fruits – whoever among them believes in Allah and the Last Day.’ [Allah] said, ‘And whoever disbelieves – I will grant him enjoyment for a little then I will force him to the punishment of the Fire, and wretched is the destination.’ And [mention] when Abraham was raising the foundations of the House and [with him] Ishmael, [saying], ‘Our Lord, accept [this] from us. Indeed You are the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing. Our Lord! Make us both submissive to You and [raise] from our descendants a nation submissive to You. Teach us our ways of worship and turn to us mercifully. Indeed, You are the Most-Relenting, the All-Merciful.'” (Qur’an 2:125-128)

“Has the story reached you of the honored guests of Abraham? When they entered upon him and said, ‘Peace.’ He answered, ‘Peace, [you are] a people unknown.’ Then he turned to his family and came with a fat [roasted] calf. And he placed it near them; he said, ‘Will you not eat?’ Then he felt from them a sense of fear. They said, ‘Fear not,’ and gave him good news of a knowledgeable boy. Then his wife approached with a loud cry, and she struck her face and said, ‘A barren old woman!’ They said, ‘Thus has said your Lord. Indeed, He is the Wise, the Knowing.'” (Qur’an 51:24-30)

Prima Qur’an comments: Based upon the above data, the following points can be made.

The narrative of the Qur’an.

  1. The son is a child, but old enough to walk, talk, and reason with his father (“O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice you. So tell me what you think.’ He said, ‘O my father, do as you are commanded. You will find me, if Allah wills, among the patient).
  2. Isaac’s birth announcement (Qur’an 11:69-73) comes after the sacrifice narrative in the textual order, implying the sacrifice occurred before Isaac was even conceived or was born.
  3. Every time the Qur’an mentions prophets in a sequence and Isaac and Isma’il are mentioned Isma’il always comes before Isaac.
  4. The Messengers who came to Abraham did not eat the food offered to them.
  5. Sarah laughs in astonishment that the messengers will not eat the food offered to them.
  6. There are no contradictory accounts about who laughs.
  7. There are no conflicting narratives about Ishmael being a teenager or a toddler.
  8. Abraham settles some of his descendants in Mecca. He accompanies those descendants. There is no story of Abraham abandoning his wife and son to the desert due to rivalry and jealousy.

There is a maze of contradictions in the biblical narrative.

The Eviction of Ishmael: A Teenager or a Baby?

The most prominent contradiction occurs in Genesis 21, when Sarah demands that Abraham evict Hagar and Ishmael. If we follow the ages explicitly stated in the text up to this point, the math creates a bizarre visual picture.

The Explicit Timeline Math

  • Genesis 16:16 – Abraham is 86 years old when Ishmael is born.
  • Genesis 21:5 – Abraham is 100 years old when Isaac is born. (Ishmael is now 14 years old).
  • Genesis 21:8 – Isaac grows and is weaned. In the ancient Near East, infants were typically weaned between the ages of 2 and 4.

Therefore, by the explicit chronology of the text, Ishmael must be between 16 and 18 years old when he and his mother are cast out into the wilderness of Beersheba.

The Narrative Contradiction

Despite Ishmael mathematically being a grown teenager, the vocabulary and imagery used by the author in Genesis 21 paint him as a tiny, helpless infant or toddler:

  • Genesis 21:14: Abraham takes bread and a skin of water, gives them to Hagar, “putting them on her shoulder, along with the child” (yeled in Hebrew).” A mother does not carry a 17-year-old young man on her shoulder alongside supplies.
  • Genesis 21:15: When the water runs out, Hagar “cast the child under one of the bushes.” The Hebrew verb tashlekh implies throwing, dropping, or gently placing down a helpless child, not a teenager who is physically larger than his mother.
  • Genesis 21:16: She walks away because she cannot bear to watch the child die.
  • Genesis 21:19-20: God opens her eyes to a well, and she goes to “fill the skin with water and give the boy a drink.” God then promises to protect the lad, and he “grew up.”

The Discrepancy: The theological timeline demands Ishmael be an adult/teenager so Isaac can be the younger miraculous child. But the narrative imagery in Genesis 21 completely breaks down unless Ishmael is a small child or infant. Scholars argue that Genesis 21 originally belonged to a source where Ishmael was born much later, or where Isaac’s birth happened much sooner.

Who is the “Only Son”?

Another major narrative contradiction appears during the binding of Isaac (the Akedah) in Genesis 22.

God commands Abraham:

“Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah…” (Genesis 22:2)

Later in the New Testament we have:

“By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.'” (Hebrews 11:17-18)

Critical scholars do not believe that Paul wrote Hebrews.

“For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.” (Galatians 4:22)

The Contradiction

  • By this point in the text, Ishmael is alive and well. Even though he was sent away into the desert, he is still Abraham’s biological firstborn son.
  • Later in Genesis 25:9, Ishmael returns to join Isaac in burying their father Abraham, proving they remained in contact and Ishmael was recognized as a son.

“His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah near Mamre, in the field of Ephron son of Zohar the Hittite,” (Genesis 25:9)

The “Laughing” accounts

This is a thematic contradiction regarding who laughs at the promise of Isaac’s birth, which alters the character dynamics. The name Isaac (Yitzhak) literally means “he laughs” or “laughter.”

  • Genesis 17:17 (Abraham Laughs): When God tells Abraham that 90-year-old Sarah will bear a son, Abraham falls on his face and laughs to himself in disbelief. God tells him, “No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac.”
  • Genesis 18:12 (Sarah Laughs): Soon after, three visitors reiterate the promise. This time, Sarah laughs to herself in disbelief. God asks, “Why did Sarah laugh?” Sarah denies it out of fear. But God says, “Yes you did laugh!”
  • Genesis 21:6 (Joyful Laughter): After Isaac is born, Sarah shifts the meaning of the laugh entirely: “God has brought me laughter, and everyone who hears about this will laugh with me.”

God also said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.”Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?” (Genesis 17:15-17)


“Then one of them said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son.” Now Sarah was listening at the entrance to the tent, which was behind him. Abraham and Sarah were already very old, and Sarah was past the age of childbearing. So Sarah laughed to herself as she thought, “After I am worn out and my lord is old, will I now have this pleasure?”  Then the Lord said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Will I really have a child, now that I am old?’ Is anything too hard for the Lord? I will return to you at the appointed time next year, and Sarah will have a son.”  Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, “I did not laugh.” But he( God) said, “Yes, you did laugh.” (Genesis 18: 10-15)

“Sarah said, “God has brought me laughter, and everyone who hears about this will laugh with me.”  And she added, “Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children? Yet I have borne him a son in his old age.” (Genesis 21:6-7)

Proving from the Qur’an that Ishmael was to be sacrificed and not Isaac.

It all comes down to the placement of (Qur’an 11:69-73).

We will place (Qur’an 11:69-73) before narrative of the sacrifice. Then we will place (Qur’an 11:69-73) after the narrative of the sacrifice.

In the standard arrangement of the Qur’anic surahs (not chronological revelation but canonical order), Surah 37 (the sacrifice narrative) appears before Surah 11 (the announcement of Isaac). However, even in the chronological order of revelation, the narrative logic demands that the sacrifice comes first.

So let us place (Qur’an 11:69-73) before sacrifice narrative.

We have a couple of choices.

There was ishmael and isaac. This is the Jewish, and Christian narrative.

There was only ishmael. This is the Islamic narrative.

There was only isaac. No one holds this position.

The Premise (granted for argument)

Isaac is the only son. There is no Ishmael.

The Problem

In Surah 11:69–73, the angels announce to Abraham:

  1. You will have a son named Isaac.
  2. After Isaac, you will have Jacob (Isaac’s descendant).

The Test in Surah 37

God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son.

The Logical Consequence

If the announcement of Isaac and Jacob comes before the sacrifice.Then this entails.
Abraham knows that Isaac will have a son named Jacob.Abraham also knows that if he sacrifices Isaac now, Isaac will die childless.
Therefore, Jacob will never be born.The promise of Jacob becomes impossible if Isaac dies before fathering him.
The two promises contradict each other:(a) “You will have Isaac and his descendant Jacob” vs. (b) “Sacrifice Isaac”

The Only Resolution

The announcement of Isaac and Jacob in Surah 11:69–73 MUST come AFTER the sacrifice event in Surah 37.

Because:

  • If the announcement comes after, then Abraham passed the test without knowing that his lineage would continue.
  • The test was maximal: he was willing to lose his only son and with him, any future lineage.
  • After the test is passed, God then announces Isaac and Jacob as a reward and confirmation of the promise.

Therefore

The son sacrificed in Surah 37 cannot be Isaac, because Isaac is not yet announced at the time of the sacrifice. If the son were Isaac, the announcement of Isaac and Jacob would have to come before the sacrifice—which creates a logical contradiction (a son cannot both be promised to have a descendant and be commanded to be sacrificed before that descendant can be born).

The sacrificed son is Ishmael.

“Then do they not reflect (yatadabbarūna) upon the Qur’an, or are there locks upon [their] hearts?” (Qur’an 47:24)

The second major proof.

“We gave him good news of Isaac—a prophet, and one of the righteous.” (Qur’an 37:112)

This clearly indicates that Isaac is not the mentioned son intended to be sacrificed (Al-Dhabih). Rather, it is Ishmael. For if Isaac were [the intended one], or if the intention was a general, non-specific statement, He would have said: “And We gave him the glad tidings that he would be a prophet from among the righteous.” But since He explicitly distinguished Isaac by his name, it is fitting that he is a different son than the one previously mentioned [the one to be sacrificed].

The words “a prophet” and “from among the righteous” function as circumstantial qualifiers (Hāl) that are predetermined/destined (Muqaddarah) regarding Isaac. This means that he would exist externally as a prophet firmly rooted in righteousness, though that state was not yet present at the exact moment the glad tidings were given.

Muslims are not dependent upon the Bible for anything at all!

The Qur’an’s source is Almighty Allah

We simply point out the errors and the conflict contained in that upon which the Jews and Christians rely upon.

From the theological perspective of the Muslim, the Qur’an is not changing or altering anything. The Qur’an, as a revelation of Almighty God, comes to restore not alter the narrative.

Some important points for Jews and Christians to reflect upon.

God’s continued interest in Ishmael even after he was removed from Sarah’s camp.

“God was with the boy as he grew up. He lived in the desert and became an archer. While he was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt.” (Genesis 21:20-21)

That which is claimed as the ‘Torah’ among the Jews and Christians never portrays Ishmael as a polytheist. In fact, after he and his mother were asked to leave God was still involved in the life of Ishmael. It stands to reason that Ishmael taught his people what he (Ishmael) was taught by his father (Abraham) about God.

Christians and Jews never really bothered to explore when and if that relationship became severed. Nor have they explored if or when God was no longer interested with the descendants and affairs of Ishmael.

The Christian claim that Muhammed (saw) is not a descendant of Isma’il.

Wathila b. al-Asqa’ reported:

I heard Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: Verily Allah granted eminence to Kinana from amongst the descendants of Isma’il, and he granted eminence to the Quraish amongst Kinana, and he granted eminence to Banu Hashim amonsgst the Quraish, and he granted me eminence from the tribe of Banu Hashim.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:2276)

Those who claim descent from Qahţān were called al-‘Arab al-Āribah (The Arabizing Arabs) while the descendants of Ismā’īl were called Al-‘Arab al-Musta’ribah (The Arabized Arabs). The Quraysh, the tribe of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) belonged to the class of Arabized Arabs and they were the Northern Arabs.

The Blessed Prophet (saw) comes from Ismail (as) whom is the progenitor of the musta’rab. This means they became Arab via adoption of the language and customs.

One thing that Christians cannot do is to say with 100% certainty that Muhammed (saw) is not a descendant of Isma’il.

What is certain is that Isma’il is of the seed of Abraham. This is something that Jews nor Christians deny. We are not dependent upon their genealogical records. In the case of Christianity this is especially so because until today they cannot get right the genealogical records of Christ Jesus.

Mecca seems so far for Abraham to have traveled to?

Based on the biblical itinerary, the total journey from Ur to Canaan by way of Haran would have been approximately 1,050 miles (1,690 km). So why is it that Abraham can travel this far but not to Mecca?

Keep in mind the Muslim tradition about Abraham, Ismā’īl and the Kabba is not dependent upon the Jewish or Christian tradition.

The Pentateuch tself is not relied upon by historians as an accurate telling of events.

The Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) itself does not explicitly claim that Moses wrote the entire five-book collection. These are claims made by tradition. So if Moses did not write it who did? It would also have to be aware of the debates surrounding whether or not the Pentateuch is considered a verbal or written inspiration.


1. Centuries removed from the source.
2. Compiled by multiple sources.
3. Lack of external corroboration. For example, the scale of the exodus has no external corroboration. Nothing from Egyptian, Canaanite, or Mesopotamian historical archeological records.
4. Post Mosaic additions. Passages such as the account of Moses’ death.

Based upon the Bible who has the superior genetic line? Abraham’s child with Hagar or Abraham’s child with Sarah?

“So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife.” (Genesis 16:3)

Abraham is said to reveal that his wife Sarah is his sister. They share the same father but not the same mother.

Abraham says:

“Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife.” (Genesis 20:12)

Accordingly the god of the Bible found no other partner suitable for Abraham. Even though later this god revealed the following:

“‘If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They are to be publicly removed from their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.” (Leviticus 20:17)

“Cursed is anyone who sleeps with his sister, whether the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother.” (Deuteronomy 27:22)

“I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” (Genesis 12:3)

So now will this god curse himself? Will the god of the Bible curse himself since he says cursed is anyone who sleeps with his sister and the Bible claims Sarah is Abrahams sister?

All this talk about nothing.

Here we go. Here is the secret sauce that Christians scholars would prefer their people not to think about.

The prophecy of being blessed through Abraham’s offspring has not yet been fulfilled during Christ time on Earth!

“Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from their people.’ Indeed, beginning with Samuel, all the prophets who have spoken have foretold these days. And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’” (Acts 3:19-25)

We would encourage you to see how the various Christian sects interpret the above text. Especially the phrase: ‘times of refreshing‘. What you will find out is that accordingly, the prophecy was partially fulfiled in Jesus and is only completely fulfilled when he returns and starts to kill everyone who does not believe in him!

Also, notice the word ‘offspring’ and not specifically the line of Issac.

“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’ (Luke 19:27)

How are all the people of the earth to be blessed when Jesus comes back and starts slaughtering a good number of those who will not accept him as king?

Textual corruption of Genesis 16:12. Defaming of Ishmael.

The Hebrew Text Compared

VersionGenesis 16:12 Hebrew TextLiteral Word-for-Word Translation
Masoretic (MT)וְהוּא יִהְיֶה פֶּרֶא אָדָם יָדוֹ בַכֹּל וְיַד כֹּל בּוֹ“And he will be a wild-ass of a man, his hand in all, and the hand of all in him“
Samaritan (SP)וְהוּא יִהְיֶה פָּרָה אָדָם יָדוֹ בַכֹּל וְיַד כֹּל בּוֹ“And he will be a fruitful man, his hand in all, and the hand of all in him“

The Preposition Pivot: “Against” vs. “With”

Notice that for the second half of the phrase (yado vakol veyad kol bo), the Hebrew words are identical in both texts.

The entire difference in English translations comes down to the Hebrew preposition בּ (Bēth / “ba-” or “bo”). This preposition is highly fluid and can mean “in,” “with,” “against,” or “by” depending on the context:

  1. The “Against” Interpretation: When a text pairs a “hand” coming into or upon someone (yado ba…), it is standard Hebrew idiom for opposition or striking (similar to the English phrase “to lay a hand on someone”). Because the Masoretic text starts with “wild ass” (a creature of conflict), translators render the preposition as “against.”
  2. The “With” Interpretation: If you read the Samaritan variant where the verse starts with “fruitful man,” rendering the preposition as “against” creates a jarring contradiction. A “fruitful, blessed man” wouldn’t logically be in constant warfare. Therefore, translators smoothing out the Samaritan text interpret the exact same preposition as “with” or “engaged with” to maintain internal consistency.

However, look how the Christians have tampered with the text in their translations here:

https://biblehub.com/genesis/16-12.htm

“He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.” (New International Version).

However, even in the above link there is an admission of a textual variant that changes the meaning.

“And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.” (KIng James Bible and New King James Version)

““He will be a wild donkey of a man, His hand will be against everyone, And everyone’s hand will be against him; And he will live to the east of all his brothers.” (NASB 1995 NASB 1997. )

The New International version quoted above also has: Or live to the east / of

“He will be fertile of man. His hand will be with everyone. And everyone’s hand will be with him. And he will live among all his brothers.” (Genesis 16:12)

Source: (The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah: First English Translation Compared with the Masoretic Version (Edited and Translated by Benyamim Tsedaka and Sharon Sullivan, Eerdmans Publishing, 2013) page 34)

You may also be interested in reading the following:

The Way of Life that existed before Christianity and Judaism.
Genesis chapter 3 separates Islam and Christianity.
Genesis 11, the Qur’an, and the Anthropology of Language.
Muslims read Genesis chapter 6. The flood of Noah.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

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