“There is no god except Him. He gives life and causes death. Your Lord, and the Lord of your forefathers.” (Qur’an 44:8)
“That is because Allah is the Truth, He gives life to the dead, and He is Most Capable of everything.” (Qur’an 22:6)
“Allah said, “Jesus, I will cause you to die and raise you up to me, and purify you from those who denied the truth, and I will exalt your followers over those who deny you until the Resurrection Day. Then you all will return to me, and I will judge between you in matters about which you disagree.” (Qur’an 3:55)
﷽
So it was brought to my attention that a Christian thought this was a good argument to prove that Jesus (as) is God. Really these people insult their own followers and readers.
“O people, a parable is set forth: pay heed to it. Those who call upon aught other than Allah shall never be able to create even a fly, even if all of them were to come together to do that. And if the fly were to snatch away anything from them, they would not be able to recover that from it. How powerless are those who invoke and those invoked!“ (Qur’an 22:73)
“And a messenger to the Children of Israel, ‘I have come to you with a sign from your Lord: I will create for you a bird from clay, breathe into it, and it will become a bird—by Allah’s Will. I will heal the blind and the leper and raise the dead to life—by Allah’s Will. And I will prophesize what you eat and store in your houses. Surely in this is a sign for you if you ˹truly˺ believe.” (Qur’an 3:49)
O people, a parable is set forth
A parable is: A short moral story that illustrates a universal truth.
“Those who call upon aught other than Allah shall never be able to create even a fly.”
The statement is directed at that those deities that worshippers petition in their prayers. This is drawling attention to the fact that Allah (swt) alone is the originator of the heavens and the earth.
“Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, “Be,” and it is.” (Qur’an 2:117)
A fly is something that most common people would consider to be a nuisance. We swat it away as it comes near our food or our face. Allah (swt) is saying that those whom people call upon other than Allah they are not even able to create a fly.
The other interesting point and implication of this verse is that today scientist are in their labs trying to create life. However, what is simply goes over our heads in such experiments is that:
a) The scientist are intelligent beings attempting to create life. The scientist themselves are part of the variables in the experiment.
If they do indeed create anything it is the result of intelligent design, a creation directed by an intelligence.
“And if the fly were to snatch away anything from themthey would not be able to recover that from it.”
First there is something very deep about this verse upon tafakkur- notice that the verse says: “They would not be able to recover that from it.” If one person was to steal a watch from another individual as long as that watch has not been altered or destroyed it is possible to recover that watch.
However, what the fly does is vomit on the food and liquify it now uses a proboscis to slurp the liquified food. So even if you caught the fly you would not be able to recuperate that which was taken from it.
Now when it comes to the verse that the Christian thinks proves the deity of Christ let us look at it:
“I will create for you a bird from clay, breathe into it, and it will become a bird—by Allah’s Will.“
This is where the real insult to the readers intelligence begins. They quote half the verse thinking that the reader will not read the whole of the verse. When we do, we quickly find that these actions are by Allah’s Will. They are not by the will of Jesus (as).
“I will heal the blind and the leper and raise the dead to life—by Allah’s Will.“
Notice something else interesting. When Jesus (as) continues he says: ” And I will prophesize what you eat and store in your houses.” Yet the statement does not end with the statement “by Allah’s Will”. This is because it is already established that Jesus (as) is a Prophet of Allah (swt) and he is authoritative. Yet, when Jesus (as) performs acts that look as if they break some supposed “laws of causality” he clearly needs to mention that this is by Allah’s Power and not his power. By Allah’s Will and not his will.
We shouldn’t be surprised by this because even in the text considered sacred by Christians we find:
“You men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as you yourselves also know.” (Acts 2:22)
Also what is a bit amusing about this supposed argument from the Christian is that it shows just how stepped in ignorance they are over some of the basics of Islamic theology and doctrine-this is across the board. I have personally never heard or seen any of them being grounded in Islamic theology.
What is amusing is the following: The statement in Arabic that you see above: “There is no Might or Power except with Allah.” The transliteration from Arabic would be: La hawla wa la quwwata illa Billah.
So Jesus (as) does not need to create a bird out of clay. He doesn’t even have to do anything fancy really.
Jesus (as) could simply say: “I eat this banana independently from the Might and Power of Allah”, and that in ad of itself would be a claim to deity.
If a Muslim says: “I obtained this PhD independently from the Might and Power of Allah.” That person would have existed the religion of Islam and would need to reaffirm their testification of faith.
There is no action done in existence that is not dependent upon the Might and Power of Allah. Allah is the Sovereign King of our entire existence!
There is no Kingdom of Satan and Kingdom of Allah (swt). All of existence is the Kingdom of Allah (swt).
Even when we steal an apple, our limbs, various systems in our bodies down to the molecular and atomic levels are all acting in accordance with the Might and Power of Allah What is not acting in accord with it is our Will. *Note* Not independent of Allah’s Power or Might but not in accord with it. Allah has willed that we have will that can act not in accordance with Allah (swt). However, it is impossible for anything in existence to act independently of the Might and Power of Allah (swt).
“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)
To learn and understand more about the doctrine of kasb (acquisition) you may be interested in reading the following:
Allah (swt) has power over the life and death of Jesus
“Allah said, “Jesus, I will cause you to die and raise you up to me, and purify you from those who denied the truth, and I will exalt your followers over those who deny you until the Resurrection Day. Then you all will return to me, and I will judge between you in matters about which you disagree.” (Qur’an 3:55)
Allah (swt) can destroy Jesus.
Even if Allah (swt) endowed Jesus with power over life and death, Allah (swt) has power over the life and death of Jesus himself!
“Say: “And who could have prevailed with Allah in any way had it been His will to destroy the Christ, son of Mary, and his mother, and everyone who is on earth-all of them? For, Allah’s is the dominion over the heavens and the earth and all that is between them; He creates what He wills: and Allah has the power to will anything!” (Qur’an 5:17)
In this situation Jesus has about as much chance as a moth in a candle stick factory.
According to the sacred text of the Christians the miracles of Jesus in the Qur’an are a big whoopty doo (a nothing burger)
In fact, if we are to believe the New Testament, Christians should be able to outshine and outclass the miracles of Jesus.
“Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.” (John 14:12)
Which follower of Jesus ever turned water into wine?
Which follower of Jesus walked on water?
Elisha’s dead bones could bring people to life.
“Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.” (2 Kings 13:21)
“Have you not considered the one who argued with Abraham about his Lord [merely] because Allah had given him kingship? When Abraham said, “My Lord is the one who gives life and causes death,” he said, “I give life and cause death.” Abraham said, “Indeed, Allah brings up the sun from the east, so bring it up from the west.” Then the unbeliever was confounded. God guides not the people of the evildoers.” (Qur’an 2:258)
Notice that when the man replied to Abraham saying: “My Lord is the one who gives life and causes death,” he said in reply: “I give life and cause death.” Abraham did not dispute this.
Why? Because on an observable empirical data the man has a point. He can get a woman pregnant. He can take his sword and end a life. This man is not seeing from the vantage point of a believer that knows that Allah (swt) ultimately is the one behind life and death. Thus, Abraham had another argument which left the man confounded.
When Allah (swt) says:
“That is because Allah is the Truth, He gives life to the dead, and He is Most Capable of everything.” (Qur’an 22:6)
This is true because ultimately it is Allah that has power over life and death. We see people who should not be able to have children, have children. We see people beat cancer. That is why Jesus (as) is saying: “by Allah’s Will” it is by his qudra, his will, his power.
May Allah (swt) guide the Christians to the truth before they taste the eternal hellfire.
“And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. Those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge of it, but only follow conjecture. For certainly, they did not kill him.” (Qur’an 4:157)
﷽
Allah-willing I will be going through my articles and replacing the standard translation into English with what you see above.
Before I get into this let me first say that there seems to be three ways of understanding the above text among Muslims today.
1)The majority view is to affirm the Christian ecclesiastical view of the patibulum –(The crossbar of a cross used for crucifixion). However, at the same time deny that instead of Jesus being on the cross, Allah (swt) made someone look like Jesus and to put this person on the cross. The ecclesiastical Christian view is not challenged. Some how they imagine Romans involved in the text.
2) The second view is to affirm the Christian ecclesiastical view of the patibulum. However, this view first espoused by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the Ahmadiyyah movement has that Jesus was on the cross but swooned and was taken down alive where he migrated to Qadian India and died. Some how they imagine the Romans involved in the text.
This view is later adopted by Muslim apologist Shaykh Ahmed Deedat -raheemullah, and Toronto based apologist Shabir Ally. However, it should be noted that neither Deedat or Ally believes that Jesus migrated to India and died.
3) The third view is also to affirm the Christian ecclesiastical view of the patibulum. However, this view also accepts the entire position of the Christian ecclesiastical view; even stating Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected! The only difference with the Christians is on the theological implications. This view is espoused by Zaytuna College alumni Dr. Ali Ataie-whom is an assistant professor with interfaith activities. * note * I am of the understanding that Dr. Ali Ataie has changed his views on this and I will update accordingly inshAllah.
Most likely Dr. Ali Ataie is attempting to reconcile clear passages of the Qur’an that Jesus died all the while trying to reconcile the Christian ecclesiastical tradition along with the various hadith that mention the second coming of Christ Jesus.
Dr. Ali Ataie position has the influence of Todd Lawson written all over it. Speaking of Todd Lawson
Todd Lawson is the author of the book: The Crucifixion and the Qur’an: A Study in the History of Muslim Thought.
Now without getting too much into this particular book, I think it suffices to bring to the readers’ attention two glaring problems with Todd Lawson’s book.
Todd Lawson himself does not even attempt to define the word ‘Crucifixion’. It certainly seems rather odd having the very word in the title of one’s book and not attempt to challenge the ecclesiastical handed-down version of the Christian tradition and yet in the same vain challenge the “ecclesiastical” handed-down version of the Islamic tradition.
Secondly, Todd Lawson dissects many words in Qur’an 4:157 yet, curiously he is quite dismissive of the treatment of the word صلب
There is scant discussion on the various verb/noun forms ‘sulb‘. Todd Lawson came with a mission. Super impose the word Cross and Crucifixion upon صلب
On page 31 of his book he states:
“It occurs in the Qur’an eight times (4:157; 12:41; 7:124; 20:71; 26:49; 5:33; 86:7;4:23). Six of these are as a verb with the accepted meaning of ‘to crucify’. The others are as a noun meaning ‘back’ or ‘loins’ (86:7; 4:23). Aside from its use in 4:157, the five remaining positive uses refer to (respectively): the fate of one of Joseph’s fellow prisoners (12:41); Pharaoh’s threat to his magicians (7:124; 20:71; 26:49); and a prescription of punishment for those who fight against God and his messenger (5:33). There is no reason to doubt that the verb indicates the punishment of crucifixion, as it is USUALLY UNDERSTOOD.”
Now there is a great reason to doubt why anyone would superimpose the ecclesiastical Christian Cross as Todd Lawson tries to do. The very paragraph itself gives you reason enough.
Alas, Todd Lawson also some how imagines Romans involved in the text of Qur’an 4:157
Another interesting take away from Dr. Ali Ataie’s position is that Zaytuna champions the idea of following strictly a legal school and considers that we must champion traditional scholarship without question.
Yet, Dr. Ali Ataie’s position if honoured by Zaytuna is certainly a sign that a whole string of titans in the Sunni Islamic tradition on exegesis made a gargantuan error. Something interesting to ponder.
Every translation I have encountered in English has Qur’an 4:157 as “they didn’t crucify him.”
I also have no good reason to believe that Romans are involved in the text of Qur’an 4:157
There are a few reasons why I can no longer accept the standard understanding and translation of this text as such.
BEFORE GOING FURTHER: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRUCIFIXION AND IMPAILMENT?
Two be clear: Both punishments are suspension punishments. That is to say something being hoisted or lifted up. The differences between Impailment and Crucifixion are as follows:
A) Impailment is a punishment where a pike/spike or other sharpened object is shoved through the loins/lubmus region of the body. The spine is used to hoist the individual. Depending upon the technique used it is designed to be a quick death struggle after. After the hapless victim cannot use their feet or hands to keep the impale device from reaching vital organs due to exhaustion. The impale device pierces vital organs and the victim dies an excruciating death.
B) Crucifixion is a punishment where an individual is put on a patibulum which is than affixed to a crux (a pole or beam). There is no nothing driven through the spine and the spinal column is relatively left intact. This suspension punishment focuses on putting nails through the hands and feet and meant to be a prolonged death struggle. Death is usually from asphyxiations. No vital organs are pierced. In fact people could survive being crucified for days. Hence, Christians make a huge ordeal about Jesus being scourged before Crucifixion.
Anything that tries to obfuscate the two is not helpful.
Usually those who want to assert the cross are the same ones who superimpose it on Qur’an 4:157. Because if both mean impailment than just translate Qur’an 4:157 as impale then (wink, wink, nudge,nudge).
I am not convinced that ṣād-lām-bā’: used twice as salabu, four times as yusallabu and twice as sul’b means “cross” or “double cross”-like structure.
A “double-cross” or “cross”-like structure would include any of the following in the link below.
There is simply not a shred of evidence from the Qur’an to support this.
What is the best approach to interpreting the Qur’an?
If we are going to have a consistent method of interpretation the best place to start would be Tafsir al-Quran bi-l-Quran. (Interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an). That is to say to do a tight analysis of all text of a given word and it’s various forms and usage.
Ṣād-lām-bā’: ṣalb and ṣallab refer to a bone from the upper body to the waist [i.e., the backbone]
Let us look at all the instances of this noun form in the Qur’an.
The artist impression.
Often in many countries where a person is robbed the police will ask the victim to give a description of the assailant. The police will than have an artist give the best description or approximation of what that individual may look like.
Now we are going to do a little exercise. Imagine you are going to do an artist impression of the passages you read in the text. What would that artist impression look like?
“And also prohibited are the wives of your sons who are from your loins (aslabikum)(وَحَلَائِلُ أَبْنَائِكُمُ الَّذِينَ مِنْ أَصْلَابِكُمْ), And that you take in marriage two sisters simultaneously, except for what has already occurred. Indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:23)
The use of the noun form sulb is very interesting here. It indicates the loins. Which also gives a very strong proof that these people were indeed not ‘crucified‘ and that the text translated in 4:157 ‘they didn’t crucify him‘ is sorely mistaken.
Let’s use logic and deduction. Given that the noun form of صلب in the text above indicates the loins. Would it make more sense that:
A) ṣalabūhu used in Qur’an 4:157 is a punishment that relates to this region of the body?
or
B) a punishment that relates to the hands and feet being nailed on a patibulum?
The following link gives an excellent description and picture show casing the lumbar region.
Again the noun form sulb being used to talk about the lubmus system and nothing to do with hands and or feet!
Perhaps Todd Lawson or those who advocate that Jesus died on an ecclesiastical cross could tell us which makes more sense the word صلب is used in connection to impailment or in connection to putting nails through a person’s hands and feet and suspending them on a patibulum?
In Oman the Arabic speaking people have various interesting phrases none of which has to do with hands or feet being pierced.
The previous two verses do not support the صلب being translated as cross or crucify.
“Correct your spine.” Is a a common phrase in Oman.
Let us look at all the instances of this verb form in the Qur’an.
HOW DOES ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE UNDERSTAND صلب IN THE FOLLOWING VERSE?
“Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or impaled(yuṣallabū) (أَنْ يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُمْ مِنْ خِلَافٍ) …cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides, or exile from the land. This ˹penalty˺ is a disgrace for them in this world, and they will suffer a tremendous punishment in the Hereafter.” (Qur’an 5:33)
Now this verse has not been said to be allegorical but clear. It relates to the punishment known as al-Hiraba (or armed robbery, highway robbery). The punishment is also used for “causing corruption in the land.” Now if you asked your average Muslim (even learned) when it says, “killed” what tool or instrument is used to kill?
Likewise when Muslim jurist saw the word “(yuṣallabū)” do you think they said, “Golly gee whiskers I wonder what this means?”
Are we really to believe that Muslim jurist that had ordered this Hadd punishment to be carried made crosses and double cross like structures when dealing with these criminals? Are we to believe that Muslims jurist ordered that the criminal carry a patibulum, suspended said person and put nails in their hands and feet?
In fact, name for us any school of jurisprudence: Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, Zahiri, Hanafi, Zaydi, 12er Shi’i or Ibadi that does this?
Why was Todd Lawson so incredibly lazy in his research in this regards?
The fact that Islamic schools of jurisprudence across the Sunni, Ibadi and Shi’i tradition do not do this a deathblow to any notion that صلب means cross or crucify.
Contemporary example: May 30, 2009 (just 14 years ago)
“Even though the word “crucifixion” is used to describe the pubic display, the act has no connection to Christianity and the crucifixion of Jesus.The bodies are not displayed on crosses.
“Chirouf said those crucified are beheaded first and then their heads are sewn back on their bodies. Then, the corpse is mounted on a pole or a tree.”
Prima-Qur’an comments: The above is important because it shows clearly that there is obfuscation over the word “crucifixion”.
Keep in mind what you see here is the Shafi’i or the Hanbali school’s interpretation of Qur’an 5:33.
In fact a little inconvenient nugget in Todd Lawsons Book states:
“A cursory look at the history of crucifixion shows that the procedure was adopted for two distinct, if sometimes combined reasons: (1) as a means of execution; (2) to provide a forceful deterrent to future crime. In the second case, the criminal was killed by a separate means before their corpse was publicly displayed on a pike or cross.These grisly details are in line with the Shafi’i ruling for one convicted for highway robbery and murder, in which this second procedure was to be followed. The sequence of events, execution then crucifixion, may be reflected in the unchanging order of the two distinct ideals of killing and crucifixion in every tafsir consulted for this study. It is also possible that this reflects nothing more than the Qur’anic word order, in which case hyperbaton (taqdim) could be expected to have been invoked by Muslim rhetoricians; but which fact alone might lead the student of the history of religion to investigate seventh-century Arab methods of punishment.”
Source: (Todd Lawson The Crucifixion and the Qur’an page 31)
A few points to note here:
a) Todd admits the people were killed and then displayed on a pike or a “cross”. So this is certainly not a crucifixion-at least not as Christians would envision for Jesus.
b)Todd does not give us any proof that in Shafi’ jurisprudence people are displayed on the patibulum or on a cross.
c) Todd is content to allow the student to “investigate seventh-century Arab methods of punishment“
One final point:
Often criminals lead a life of crime. Meaning they do lesser crimes that eventually lead to bigger crimes. So let us say there is a case in which a thief had been caught and according to the jurist their hand is cut off. The thief is caught again and a foot is cut off. Then said individual commits the crime of al-Hiraba. So than how do they (yuṣallabū) the individual?
PHAROAH EGYPT & صلب (SULB)
Now we will examine three text of the verb form that relate to the same incident.
“I will surely cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides; then I will surely impale(la-uṣallibannakum) (لَأُقَطِّعَنَّ أَيْدِيَكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ مِنْ خِلَافٍ ثُمَّ لَأُصَلِّبَنَّكُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ) you all.”(Qur’an 7:124)
It is obvious and plain as day that a person who has their hand cut off is not going to be “crucified” -especially not in the way the ecclesiastical sense that Christians imagine. If the hands were cut off then definitely it was not a T or ✞ shaped cross, it had to be impalement.
“[Pharaoh] said, “You believed Moses before I gave you permission. Indeed, he is your leader who has taught you magic, but you are going to know. I will surely cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will surely impale (wala-uṣallibannakum) (لَأُقَطِّعَنَّ أَيْدِيَكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ مِنْ خِلَافٍ وَلَأُصَلِّبَنَّكُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ) you all.” (Qur’an 26:49)
Again as above a person who has their hand cut off on opposite is certainly not ‘crucified‘ -especially not in the ecclesiastical sense that Christians would image. If the hands were cut off then definitely it was not a T or ✞ shaped cross, it had to be impalement.
“[Pharaoh] said, “You believed him before I gave you permission. Indeed, he is your leader who has taught you magic. So I will surely cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will impale you (wala-uṣallibannakum) (وَلَأُصَلِّبَنَّكُمْ فِي جُذُوعِ النَّخْلِ) IN/ON THE TRUNKS OF PALM TREES, and you will surely know which of us is more severe in [giving] punishment and more enduring.” (Qur’an 20:71)
Again, a person is who has their hand cut off is not going to be “crucified” -especially not in the ecclesiastical sense that Christians have imagined.
Very interesting in the above text that these people will be impaled IN the trunks of Palm Trees. If you look at the various translations of the Qur’an they translate the word fi’ as ‘on‘ which is a bit curious.
The translators: Muhammad Ahmed & Samira translate 20:71 as:
“He said: “You believed to him before that I permit for you, that he truly (is) your biggest/greatest (E) who taught/instructed you the magic/sorcery, so I will cut off/sever (E) your hands and your feet from opposites (sides), and I will crucify you (E) in the palm trees’ trunks/stems, and you will know (E) which of us (is) stronger (in) torture and more lasting .”
So let us do back to our artist impression. We draw a picture or someone with their hands and feet cut off on opposite ends and impaled in the trunk of palm trees. How on earth anyone gets a patibulum with nails in the hands and feet from the above text is just pure desperation.
By the way (Qur’an 20:71) & (Qur’an 26:49) & (Qur’an 7:124) is a reference to the same incident. So what Qur’an 20:71 states is applicable to the other two text.
So when Pharaoh says: “And you will surely know which of us is more severe in [giving] punishment and more enduring,” you know that he had something truly diabolical in mind.
Look what the world History Encyclopedia says:
“Ancient Egypt utilized a process known as impaling. The body was literally impaled upon a pointed stake and death occurred quite rapidly as the major organs were pierced. The hieroglyph character for denoting this was a picture of it, with the phrase, “to give on the wood.” The practice is mentioned during the reigns of Sobekhotep II, Akenaten, Seti, and Ramesses IX. Merneptah (1213-1203 BCE) “caused people to be set upon a stake” south of Memphis.” Source:https://www.worldhistory.org/crucifixion/
The American schools of oriental research state:
“The death penalty was carried out by impalement. The body was put on the pointed top of a wooden stake and the victim’s weight drew the body down the pole. We have no representations of this procedure, but there is a hieroglyph depicting a body atop a stake after the phrase “to give on the wood.” The execution seems to have been in public; one text even says besides a temple.” Source: The American schools of oriental research https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2016/01/crime-and-punishment-in-pharaonic-egypt/
So when we see this expression of Pharaoh in the Qur’an:
“I will impale you (wala-uṣallibannakum) (وَلَأُصَلِّبَنَّكُمْ فِي جُذُوعِ النَّخْلِ) IN/ON THE TRUNKS OF PALM TREES.”
And we see the expressions: “To give on the wood“
By the way (Qur’an 20:71) & (Qur’an 26:49) & (Qur’an 7:124) above cannot refer to a crucifixion or to a cross.
Why? Look at the picture below and you do the physics.
Every once in awhile a Christian gets the idea that he wants to experience the suffering that Jesus is alleged to have endured on the so called double-cross. So this person will lay down half naked on a beam of wood and gets someone to nail the palms of his hands (or the wrist) and his feet to the beam. When the beam of wood is stood up on its end, the persons’ body weight immediately tears his hands and the feet loose and they slide off the beam in degradation and humiliation.
This happened all to often, and people began to really wonder if the ecclesiastical images of Jesus inspired by painters, having him on the double cross were really true.
Thus, in all effort to make sense of the ecclesiastical images, made popular by paintings, the all too familiar “nailed to the double cross” method, along came the idea that the hands were not only nailed to the cross, but ropes were used to bind the forearms to the horizontal beam. This satisfied the world that such a method would prevent a body from falling off the cross and everyone breathed a sigh of relief.
This brings us to the next text: “Oh two companions of prison, as for one of you, he will give drink to his master of wine; but as for the other, he will be impaled (fayuṣ’labu) (وَأَمَّا الْآخَرُ فَيُصْلَبُ فَتَأْكُلُ الطَّيْرُ مِنْ رَأْسِهِ), and the birds will eat from his head. The matter has been decreed about which you both inquire.” (Qur’an 12:41) This is what the Torah says about the incident:
“When the chief baker saw that Joseph had given a favorable interpretation, he said to Joseph, “I too had a dream: On my head were three baskets of bread. In the top basket were all kinds of baked goods for Pharaoh, but the birds were eating them out of the basket on my head.” “This is what it means,” Joseph said. “The three baskets are three days. Within three days Pharaoh will lift off your head and impale your body on a pole. And the birds will eat away your flesh.”
(Genesis 40:16-19) New International Version
Compare/Contrast this with:
When the chief baker saw that the interpretation was good, he said unto Joseph, I also was in my dream, and, behold, I had three white baskets on my head: And in the uppermost basket there was of all manner of bake meats for Pharaoh; and the birds did eat them out of the basket upon my head. And Joseph answered and said, This is the interpretation thereof: The three baskets are three days: Yet within three days shall Pharaoh lift up thy head from off thee, and shall hang thee on a tree; and the birds shall eat thy flesh from off thee.”
(Genesis 40:16-19) King James Version
Since this text is dealing with prophet Joseph (as) and he was under the Pharaoh of Egypt of his time and this is even prior to the time of Moses (as).
So based upon what we have seen concerning صلب as impailment in the above text (Qur’an 20:71) & (Qur’an 26:49) & (Qur’an 7:124) there is no good reason to believe that (Qur’an 12:41) is a reference to the patibulum, a cross or crucifixion.
So having gone through all the verses in the Qur’an that only leaves us with Qur’an 4:157.
What about Qur’an 4:157?
And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. Those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge of it, but only follow conjecture. For certainly, they did not kill him.” (Qur’an 4:157)
Notice that the context Qur’an 4:157 is speaking about Jews. There is no mention of Romans in the text. You may start at Qur’an 4:154 for context.
There is a double denial. They did not kill him nor did they (ṣalabūhu) him.
Why the seemingly redundant text? Is it not sufficient to say “And they did not kill him?” Surely that covers everything?
Why would Allah (swt) deny that Jews “Crucified” Jesus? Especially if Allah (swt) is aware of Jewish laws?
Jews do not crucify anyone nor do they put people on crosses.
Jews do however impale people. So translating (ṣalabūhu) as impale makes complete sense.
The phrase “but it was made to appear to them” does not indicate that this was something Allah (swt) did.
Now what happens is for some reason Muslims look at Qur’an 4:157 and they see Romans! The whole context of the text is that Allah (swt) is talking about Jews.
If Allah (swt) wanted to say Romans he certainly he could have. Yet, Qur’an 4:157 mentions nothing about the Romans.
“The Romans have been defeated.” (Qur’an 30:20)
So where than do Muslims gets Romans or Crucifixion or Cross in Qur’an 4:157 ?? ?
Now if you want to wade knee deep in shoddy scholarship and try to reconcile Islam with received Christian ecclesiastical history and ignore the context of the Qur’an and interpret passages in a vacuum go for it. Like Todd Lawson, you can superimpose the Romans on the text. You can even imagine that Qur’an 4:157 is speaking about some historical event in relation to Christian Good Friday if you want. (Crucifixion) ?
Objection: But This means the Qur’an denies the Crucifixion and that is historical fact!
Response: The Qur’an is absolutely unaware of an event called “The Crucifixion” either in support of it or in negation.
However, such a discussion is absolutely irrelevant to the text of the Qur’an.
Objection: But doesn’t’ the Arabic word salib mean cross? Don’t we see that in the Arabic language today?
Answer: First one would do well to bare in mind that ‘The Cross’ was not a de facto symbol of Christianity, really only becoming venerated in the 4th century C.E. Secondly, words acquire meaning or encapsulate new expressions that they did not originally intend or convey.
For example: I see hot molten rock spewing forth from the Earth in Hawaii. I turn to my friend and say, “Wow cool!” Now the word cool does not necessarily connoate the temperature of something.
The word fantastic etymologically has the same root as fantasy. Fantastic initially meant something conceivable by the imagination. Now the word fantastic basically means wonderful.
Conclusion:
There is simply not a shred of evidence that the Qur’an mentions a cross or anything at all about crucifixion. There is no mention about a patibulum or nails, nothing, nada, zilch, zip.
Henceforth from today, I will be translating the Qur’an 4:157 as saying, “They didn’t impale him” -keeping consistent with his various usages and forms throughout the Qur’an.
“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)
“The servants of the RaHmān (the All-Merciful, Allah) are those who walk on the earth humbly, and when the ignorant people speak to them, they reply peacefully.” (Qur’an 25:63)
﷽
So it was just after Farj on Jumaa morning here in Singapore when I checked my WhatsApp and there from that gentle and noble soul, brother Nazzam were the latest links of interest. Bless him! I would get updates from time to time on articles, blog posts and vlogs and debates that have taken place. So this particular morning was a debate between two people I had not really known before.
So I head over to twitter and what do I see, already that one side has censored comments. So, I go and click on the link to the debate posted on YouTube. The comment section was clearly pro Dr. Khalil. I saw many people in vigorous exchanges with followers of the Athari creed; and they were getting pressed. I then recalled that the first time I heard of this Jake guy. I believe he was introduced by Mufti Abu Layth (Naheim Ajmal) in one of his episodes. I believe it was pointed out that he used arguments he pinched from Professor Emad Hamdeh’s against the Quraniyoon, to use as reasons why (he), Jake, was no longer intrigued with that movement. From there on this Jake threw in his lot with the Athari/Salafist crowd. In this day and age if you want to gain followers and notoriety quickly through social media that is the most strategic decision one could make.
Not knowing of Dr. Khalil Andani, however, was clearly a loss for me. It is clear to me that Professor Andani is quite formidable. There is no doubt in mind that anyone who ever had the blessing of attending his class got their hard-earned money’s worth. Beyond that, they learned at the hands of an adept.
As for those people who are sitting comfortably in their homes drinking high grade coffee shrugging their shoulders and saying ‘who cares’ about such a debate. Welcome to the world of privilege and security! Professor Andani is doing you and everyone else a huge service! He is debating a person who is representative of a certain strain of thought that on the regular participates in the anathematization of other Muslims.
It is no stretch of the imagination to say that by putting a dent in such creedal positions he could be saving lives! Imagine an impressionable young Muslim who believes that Professor Andani and all like him hold such abhorrent aberrant and dangerous views that they must be dealt with. Imagine a gathering of high profile Muslim philosophers conducting a symposium, Professor Andani is in attendance, suddenly an attacker unleashes a few rounds killing many people in the process.
Imagine that same impressionable young Muslim saw the disasters performance on behalf of Jake, and although he may not be inclined to agree with everything Professor Andani says, he witnessed enough to make him question the absolute certainty that he once placed in the Athari creedal position. Instead of wanting to pop off a few rounds into a crowd of people who have been anathematized; this youth leaves Salafism altogether, or he becomes convinced of his own position, while holding space for other views.
I will be fair to say that Al Qaeda, Al Nusrat, ISIS and others do not necessary represent Salafism per say. However, it is not even a point of debate to say that Al Qaeda, Al Nusrat, ISIS have more in common with Salafi/Athari thought than they do Ashari/Maturidi/Mutazali theological positions.
Make no mistake about it, this debate is a watershed moment. The Athari creed has never been laid bare, deconstructed and destroyed in such a public formatted debate as it was in this debate.
Jake went in so cocksure of himself thinking Dr. Andani would be easy prey.
It was like watching a Discovery Channel documentary where you see the Mongoose carefree through the forest, and you spot a cobra skulking and slithering its way through the foliage, poised to strike. Yet, this Mongoose will be no prey! On the contrary, once the Mongoose caught on to the scent, and pressed the attack, the poor cobra takes such a thrashing that you almost feel sorry for the elapid.
Let us look at the opening statements of each of the debaters. The big surprise for me not really knowing anything about these two debaters is who actually used more naql or text? My presumption would be that Professor Andani would come in using more philosophy, and logic and less textual proofs. My presumption is that the Athari would come to a debate loaded with textual proofs and evidence.
This was simply a no contest!
Professor Andani used 7 positive arguments from the Qur’an. Jake used 4. Andani gave us some commentary on how these text support his position. Jake simply quoted them without explaining how they support the Athari school. Jake used two other text from the Qur’an from Khusraw and Al Tusi in a polemical fashion against Andani. When it came to the Sunnah or ahadith, Professor Andani gave 5 a hadith. Firstly to show us that the guardians of proper understanding of the primary and secondary sources come from the Ahl Bayt. Secondly he gave two ahadith for his argument concerning the pen. Professor Andani quoted no less than 20 different source showing questionable ahadith that are an affront to the idea of a transcendent divine being. When it came to giving positive ahadith for the Athari position Jake gave us nothing. When it came to ahadith bringing into question Islamic philosophy Jake gave us nothing. Since Jake lacks the trade mark beard of the bulk of Salafi/Athari Muslims one could easily mistake Andani for being the Athari in the debate.
Since Athar means remnant or report, clearly not only is Professor Andani an adept in Islamic science, he is actually the true Athari between the two! Jake on the other hand, a nothing burger.
Not necessarily an argument against either Ismaili doctrine or Islamic Philosophy in general Jake repeated several times the Professor Andani asserts that anyone who claims that who ever states that Allah (swt) has names and attributes is tantamount to shirk and anthropomorphism. Please see @22:06 minute mark:
“Khalil does not believe that Allah is the direct creator of the heavens and the earth. He does not believe that Allah is All Knowing, All Powerful and Perfect, in fact HIS BOOK states: that to ascribe such names and attributes to God is shirk and anthropomorphism.”
A similar claim is made at the 23:37 minute mark.
Why didn’t Jake show us the extract from Professor Andani’s book? He claims that these are the beliefs of Professor Andani yet he doesn’t give us the quotes for this. This would certainly help Jake, as Jake has made takfir of Andani, he can now turn around and claim that Andani did the same thing.
Professor Khalil gives 5 arguments for refuting the Hanbali creed. He gives 5 arguments for the Absolute Oneness of Allah & His Creation of First Intellect. Although, I feel Professor Khalil more than proved his case in regards to the Absolute Oneness of Allah (swt), he possibly needed more time to flesh out his argument of the creation of the First Intellect.
Professor Khalil showed quite forcefully the issue with Tafwid.
Affirming the apparent meaning, or do ta’wil for metaphorical meaning. Jake must affirm the apparent meaning and reject ta’wil. This leads us to Tafwid al-Ma’na where you deny the apparent meaning and deny the opposite of the apparent meaning. This position is logically incoherent. If you say you do not know the meaning, then there is no meaning that is accessible to humans. This is a devastating argument because it shows that Athari are actually the one with some esoteric belief in the divine. The Qur’an and Sunnah conveys that which is not intelligible to humanity. Another devastating point given by Professor Khalil @39:27 minute mark that if you want to argue for Tafwid al-Ma’na and Tafwid al-Kayf and say ‘Bi Li Kayf’ than you should stop debating with Christians. The argument here is that Athari are in reality believers of Mysterianism.
All of the points given in Professor Andani’s slides are effectively devastating for the Athari position.
“No Qur’anic verse and NO Prophetic Report teaches that God possesses real attributes (sifat) that are additional to and distinct from His Essence.” Where did they get the idea from? They got it from speculative theology.
During his first 10 minute rebuttal.
Surprisingly for someone who has done many debates Jake seemed to forget how the rebuttal part of a debate goes. Instead of showing why Dr. Andani’s five points against Athari creed were wrong, Jake continued his opening presentation of attacking Andani’s views. The only thing he really interacted with was that which was easy pickings. He scanned the list of the slide Professor Andani put up and picked out Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani. (An Athari). Even, I am not sure why Professor Khalil had him on that list.
When quoting Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani
“We believe that Allah CONSTRICTS, EXPANDS, rejoices, loves, dislikes, becomes pleased, becomes angry, and abhors, he has two hands and both of his hands are right. The hearts of his servants are between two of his fingers and he is in the direction of uluh…..” Jakes says @ 50:35 “This sounds like Athari creed to me.”
What did Jake mean when he says Allah (swt) constricts and expands? Does he mean that it is an action that Allah (swt) does to the creation? As in constricting the breast or expanding the breast? Or does he mean that Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani is asserting that Allah (swt) himself, his essence, expands/constricts? This sort of irresponsible reading of the text in English without proper explanation is no Bueno. Jake did not deal with the issues of divine simplicity or the problem of the ontological collapse of his position.
Professor Andani’s first 10 minute rebuttal.
@1:03:27 They were not putting up Professor Adnani slides. It is hard to know if that was intentional or not.
@1:11:36 Professor Adnani claims that Jake was intellectually dishonest by admitting a fact from Nasir al-Din Tusi’s work by not admitting the fact of what he had actually written. @1:12:07 Professor Adnani bemoans the fact that Jake cannot read Arabic and therefore cannot go to the primary sources. He is overly reliant upon Orientalism and Orientalist.
Jake’s second 5 minute rebuttal.
@1:18:34 Jake puts up the claim that he has a document ‘with all these references if anyone is interested I’ll make them publicly available and you can read them yourself.” This statement is followed up with a dig @ Professor Khalil doing Taqiyyah, practicing obfuscation or lying.
@1:19:44 “No it does not mean there are multiple necessary beings, we don’t say there are multiple humans, that Jake is multiple humans just because I have multiplicity within me. I’m still one being. We don’t say that there are multiple uh beings within Jake. This is not the language that we use”
Did he just use himself to compare with Allah (swt)? This is very problematic. It is a violation of “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
@1:20:07 “My argument is quite simple, just read the Qur’an, for the most part.” WHAT??
@1:21:23 Jake says that he trusts someone else over going directly to the text himself! Especially doesn’t trust Professor Andani. “You keep talking about Arabic but you cannot even pronounce basic words, which I find to be quite shocking.” You can tell that Jake felt the sting of Professor Andani’s comment about Jake not being able to go to the primary sources because Jake lacks the requisite command of Arabic to do so.
Professor Khalil second 5 minute rebuttal.
@ 1:24:06 Professor Adnani wanted to know whom Jake will rely upon for creedal positions. Prior to the debate Jake gave Professor Andani the creed of Ibn Qudama. Ibn Qudama says: “We do not go beyond the traditions from the Prophet and his companions; nor do we know the how these, save by the acknowledgement of the Messenger and the confirmation of the Qur’an.”-Ibn Qudama (Tahrim)
“Debate is for people who can use logic and reason which you are not allowed to do!”
Ouch! That was yet another stinging point from Professor Andani.
@1:26:00 Professor Adnani makes another great point. Jake did not specify what he meant by necessary attributes.
1:26:34 I almost fell out of my chair, Captain Planet? It is good to see that Dr. Khalil is forceful in his presentation and can keep a serious topic light-hearted.
@1:26:45 Professor Adnani bemoans the fact that Jake is severely handicapped in this debate by not being able to read the primary sources.
@1:26:58 Professor Adnani puts forth a very blunt question to Jake. “How do you define wujud, existence?
15 minute cross examinations. Jake cross-examines Professor Andani
During his 15 minute cross-examination, Jake spent less time asking questions and more time giving a sermon. As regards demeanor, Jake was like this angry child, who ran away from home only to find a wise and comforting father in Dr. Khalil Andani. Khalil was warm and had presence, Jake was bitter and needed consoled.
@ 1:30:19 Jake ask Professor Andani about true knowledge of Allah (swt) only coming through the Imams. Through the intellect or the imams (qualified scholarship). Jake himself admits its from qualified scholarship when he even queerly offered, “just read the Qur’an, for the most part.”
1:30:57 Jake could frame his question another way. ‘During the time of the Blessed Messenger (saw) was true Tawhid known only through the Prophet (saw), whom would be the ‘rightly guided Imam’ or through other means? If we can understand this, it will help us to understand the position of not only Ismaili Shi’a but our Shi’a brothers in general. Even if we disagree with them.
When Professor Adnani gives his reply that there are two types of ‘ilm and one is supra discursive, also known as marifa. This is something that adherents of Sufi paths would appreciate. Where as those who have no familiarity with the Seeker-Shaykh relationship would have no appreciation of this.
@1:33:41, Jake moves on to the next point because he saw no way in. Usually if you strongly argue, you will overwhelm your opponent and press the attack until you get them to capitulate through the sheer strength of your argument.@1:34:12 Jake started to bite his fingernails which is usually a sign of stress or anxiety. I don’t know if it is me but it looks like he proceeds to chew for a moment on a piece of fingernail.
@1:37:40 Professor Andani makes the point that there is no way Kirmani is refuting Ibn Sina because Ibn Sina has not even written his works yet!!! “Remember Ibn Sina died in 1037 and Kirmani died in 1020. There is no way Kirmani is refuting Ibn Sina because Ibn Sina hasn’t even written his major works when Kirmani is writing. Kirmani is likely referring to a pre Ibn Sina falsifa tradition.”
@1:38:40 Professor Andani enlightens Jake who confuses the Ashari position of the divine will that is entirely self determined, with that of the Ismail’i position.
1@:40:00 Jake when pressed on whether he knows what type of shirk Al Sharistani is referencing, Jake replies, ‘You can’t respond with a question.” Professor Khalil is not familiar with debates or debate territory. So, he could have used the most common trick there is in this situation, which would be to ask a statement of clarity, ‘I’m not sure the type of shirk you are referring to?’ Interestingly, as a point of order Jake ignored the ‘you are not supposed to respond with a question’ when he was being questioned. He (Jake) did this multiple times.
Anyway, Jake gets educated on the two different types of shirk, shirk kafi and shirk jalil. This itself shows further lack of preparation on his behalf.
@1:40:40 You really have to love Professor Andani at this point, he is totally, relaxed and having a great time. That slight smile on the face is transporting him straight to the class room where he is tenured Professor teaching a subject he has full grasp of to a first year student, thirsty for knowledge and information.
More Than an interlocutor or debate opponent, Professor Andani at this point takes on the role of a willing teacher, trying to help Jake in writing a thesis paper. It’s delightful to watch the good Professor work and it has made me keen to read his published works and follow up with more of his material.
@1:42:11 Jake asks Professor Andani the question: “If creation did not exist would God exist? Khalil asks a question, but Jake doesn’t’ pause him. At this point Jake is clearly forsaken any crusade he may have thought he was upon. Jake actually looks tired.
@1:42:31 Jake asserts about Professor Andani “You said he couldn’t exist without creation” -Always not a good sign in a debate when the opponent wants to put words in the other’s mouth.
@1:43:54 Professor Andani again asserts that Jake is unfortunately relying upon secondary sources. Jake responds that’s not true. “Well it is!” Quick to the rejoinder Professor Andani is!
15 minute cross examinations. Professor Andani cross-examines Jake.
@1:45:24 “Do the attributes depend on God’s essence or are they ā sē necessary in themselves?
@1:45:27 Jake ask a question: “What do you mean by depend?” As you can see as a point of order Jake violates the stipulations of the debate.
Professor Andani presses the question again: “Does the existence of an attribute of Allah depend on the essence?”
Jake responds: @1:45:34 “In the SAME WAY that for you the existence of creation or God’s existence depends on the existence of creation.”
This is what happens when you are in attack mode and you do not think your arguments through.
Here Jake is involved in pure speculative theology upon which he has provided no clear proof text from the Qur’an or the Sunnah. He is comparing the creation of Allah (swt) with his attributes. He is also arguing against Athari creed; because, if he is saying he believes THE SAME WAY (that he assumes Adnani believes) this is a problem.
Again Professor Andani presses: “Do the attributes depend on God’s essence, either they do or they don’t?”
@1:45:44 Jake responds: “Yes, in the SAME WAY you would say that God’s existence depends upon creation.”
Trust me people there are Muslims who are Athari/Salafi in Aqidah listening to these statements of Jake and their jaws are gaping open and they are stroking beards repeated ‘astaghfirullah’ over and over upon hearing these things.
@1:46:15 Professor Andani ask: “Are the attributes of Allah are they ā sē or not ā sē?
1:46:22 Jake breaks the rules again and asks a question: “Why are you changing the question?”
The reason he is changing the question is you are so elusive and Professor Andani is trying to get you to clarify your position. @1:46:30 Professor Andani has to bring in the moderator because Jake is evading the questions.
@1:47:24 Professor Andani is having none of it. He presses Jake ‘You define dependence and tell us whether the attributes depend upon the essence or not.”
@1:47:42 Professor Khalil “Let’s make some breakthrough here. Creation depends on God I said that? Are you saying the attributes depend on the essence the same way creation depends on God?”
@1:47:50 Jake responds: “I am saying there is a counterfactual dependence.”
May Allah (swt) guide us and protect us from being among the lost! At this point I began to wonder if Jake really is a Muslim. Because, if he is now stating there is a counterfactual dependence, which is to state that the attributes and the essence are mutually dependent or inter-dependent. Not necessarily problematic in and of itself; However, either one in Islam is major shirk, especially if you juxtapose that statement to Jake’s earlier admission:
Thus, Allah (swt) and his creation are counterfactual? They are mutually dependant or inter-dependant? That is not the belief of the Muslims, and for us, Jakes’ statements take him out of Islam. That is unless Jake claims he misspoke or he was confused during the debate. Hopefully he will clarify in the future. Those statements juxtaposed together take one out of Islam.
Listen @1:48:48 “In a sense, one cannot exist without the other. We don’t say it’s a casual dependence.” @1:49:12 Professor Andani says, “The attributes depend upon the essence.”
Moreover, Jake responds: “Only in the sense that they cannot exist without each other.”
I was surprised by Professor Andani’s continued line of questioning considering Jake’s admission that he believes the essence and attributes are counterfactual and that the attributes depend on the essence in the same way that God depends on the existence of creation.
Nonetheless @1:49:45 “If something is not ā sē (aseity) can it be God?”
Jake responds: “Sorry” I do not believe that Jake is familiar with the Latin terminology for aseity.
Professor Andani continues: “If something is not ā sē is it contingent?”
Jake is uncertain about what he is being asked. He is not supposed to ask questions but answer them. Nonetheless: “Anything that is not God is a contingent is that the question?”
Jake responds: “Yeah sure.”
@1:51:00 Jake is buckling under the pressure, disengaging the rules of the debate, speaking out of turn. Jake established that he believes that God is the essence and the attributes.
@1:52:08 Professor Andani “So God contains and essence and real distinct attributes?”
1:52:22 Professor Andani presses the point: “The attributes are not identical to the essence and not identical to one another.”
“Jake responds: “Correct.”
@1:52:25 Professor Andani states: “O.K Therefore your God is a conglomerate of different entities. Thank you for confirming that. Next, I’m gonna move on now.”
@1:52:47 A very classic moment in this debate. Professor Andani set this up nicely. “My view is this, O.K.? The will of God is necessary. Every decision, choice that God has made could not have been any other way O.K.? Its the best possible choice. And any choice God has made it is impossible to conceive it could have been other way. This is my position.” “Is that position compatible with Islam according to you or not?
@1:53:24 Professor Andani “Does it go against Tawhid?” To which Jake responds: Yes it does!”
“It goes against Tawhid in the sense that your saying God does not have free will, that creation is just a necessitated by his essence. Yes that goes against Islam because the Qur’an and the authentic Sunnah say otherwise.”
An odd statement from Jake considering he just stated earlier:
Jake responds: @1:45:34 “In the SAME WAY that for you the existence of creation or God’s existence depends on the existence of creation.”
This Jake does not have a sound aqeedah position. Nonetheless, go back and read Professor Andani’s statement above @1:52:47 you will see that he is reading from either a piece of paper or screen. He is reading verbatim a statement from Mohamed Hijab!
That was very cunning of Professor Khalil. Remind me never to debate that guy!
If Professor Andani made any “bad” move during the debate it was @1:54:26. It is not an error per say. It’s just that he should have saved that explosive bit of information for his closing remarks! Because, the way that Professor Andani puts the bait on the hook, Jake caught on real fast, and knew what was up.
@1:55:05 Jake is sensible enough to know the trap that Dr. Khalil is laying out before him. However, he is reluctant to make that commitment. This shows the shifting nature of his own doctrinal position. Haqq is Haqq. How can you be firm on a position literally just 3 minutes ago and now you are hesitant!
@1:55:43 Professor Andani drops the bomb on Jakes “I read to you the words of Mohamed Hijab during his Londoniyyah video published 6 months ago! You can go see it! He literally says, what I just said!”
Professor Andani doesn’t stop there: “
“So Mohamed Hijab is teaching a view of Tawhid that you think is not Tawhid yet you go and work for the Sapiens Institute!” If there was a debate equivalent of Khabib Nurmagomedov making Conor McGregor submit during their UFC bout that was it! @1:55:57 “Can you read it?”
Jake at this point is desperate to find any contentious point to avoid the devastating blow just dealt to him. “Your claiming he is my Ustadh.” “How is he my Ustadh?”
Asking Professor Andani to read a text is a strategic move. It also gives Jake a breather, so that Professor Andani will just stop asking more devastating questions and the timer can run out.
You wanna know something telling. Is the heavy weights in the Athari/Salafi community. Those most visible out there in the Daw’ah. If anyone thinks for an iota of a second that Jake won this debate surely the silence of the Athari/Salafi dai’ee is deafening.@ 2:00:42 Professor Andani asks: “Where is Allah? Can you point with your finger?”
Jake pointing towards the direction of Allah (swt). The Earth spins on its axis on a 24 hour rotation. Now imagine if we placed someone on the polar opposite side of the Earth and asked the same question at the same time. Allah’s throne would have to be somewhere in the middle of the Earth. Then next we put Jake in a space suit in zero gravity and ask him the same question.
@2:00:50 Professor Andani asks: “Is the Throne below Allah?” Jake responds: “Yes”
Professor Andani ask: “Is the lowest heaven below the throne?” Jake responds: “Yes”
@2:01:26 Professor Andani ask: “Do you affirm Allah as per the hadith descends every night to the lowest heaven?” Jake responds: “Yes I affirm Nuzul.”
@2:01:41 Professor Andani ask: “Do you affirm that Allah descends from above the throne to below the throne?” Jake responds: “He never leaves the throne.”
22:01:51 Professor Andani asks: “What is the meaning of a descent here? Because descent means to go from above to below. So what does Nuzul mean?” Jake responds: “Yes we understand it in the plain meaning which is mentioned in a hadith….it’s very clear I think everybody knows what descent means.”
2:2:02:11 Professor Andani asks: “So you affirm that Allah descends from above the throne to the lowest heaven below the throne.” Jake: “Without entering his creation. Yes”
Jake just posited pure speculative theology. Where is there a text from the Qur’an or Sunnah that says that Allah (swt) does not enter his creation? Where did he get that idea from?!
2:02:08 Jake claims: “It’s very clear I think everyone knows what descent means.”
@2:02:25 Professor Andani asks: “What is the meaning of descent that everybody knows? Jake responds: “I just explained it to you.”
As one person on Twitter described this segment: “Descending means descending but not descending as descending can be descending when we say descending but you know and I know you know what descending is.”
Another point of contention. From what text of the Qur’an and Sunnah do the Athari get the idea that Allah (swt) is above the throne as some ‘default position‘?
Jakes closing remarks:
@2:06:36 Jake claims he will have a talk with Mohamed Hijab. So it will be interesting in the future, if Jake retracts his claim or claims Mohamed Hijab’s views on Tawhid are mistaken.
@2:08:30 Jake is clearly upset that he couldn’t turn this into an Athari Sunni vs a Shi’a Ismaili debate. This is also why either he or his team changed the name of the YouTube Video.The misleading and dishonest title vs the agreed upon debate topic and correct title.
@2:08:50 An admission from Jake that he did not address many of Khalil’s points.
Professor Adnani closing remarks:
In his closing remarks Dr. Khalil Andani had made comments about Jake that was not insulting. He said that Jake is certainly a smart individual; however, Jake needs practice in defending his creed (which he does).
In my humble opinion, Professor Andani messed up with giving good will points. Professor Andani means well but unfortunately in Jake’s mind saying that he (Jake) is intelligent but utterly demolishing his (Jakes) ability to defend the Athari creed was worse than if Andani had not said anything in good will at all.
@2:18:25 Professor Andani brings up a point that should have been brought up during his rebuttal period. I am not a fan of either party introducing pertinent points of a debate during closing statements. However, it would be interesting to see if Jake has any rejoinders to that statement in the future concerning Kashf Al Asrar-‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani
@2:19:35 Professor Andani comments on how Jake calls his presentation a machine gun approach, because he (Jake) was utterly unprepared. Which is true.
@2:21: Professor Andani likened Athari creed to mysterianism which was a very tight intellectual slap. It certainly hurts the Daw’ah and prepared Christians WILL use these counter arguments, as well they should.
Conclusion: Final Thoughts.
Professor Andani put on a clinic in that debate! If someone mentions his name to me I will reply, ‘Oh you mean the excellence of execution?’ Because Jake was excellently executed by the excellence of execution, Professor Andani. The man is not even a seasoned debater, but he was methodical, lucid and on point!
In fact as stated before, this is a watershed moment. Never that I can think of has Athari creed been laid bare in public in such a way. Professor Andani reached deep and took a piece of Jake’s soul. Not that this was the good Professor’s intention; however, you can tell by Jake’s Kamkazi approach after the debate that he realized he got destroyed.
Observe: Jake: The Kamkazi: I got destroyed in this debate but I am going to do my best in my little Mitsubishi A5M to take you down with me!
Who won this debate?
When I was first told about the debate in the early morning hours of 17/6/2002 I went to see the video and I observed in the comment section the Athari’s were getting pressed. The majority of comments were in favour of the Professor. So they deleted comments in favour of the Professor. They deleted comments of exchanges where athari were not doing too well. They changed the title of the debate. Finally, they stopped comments altogether.
You want to know something telling? It is this. The heavy weights in the Athari/Salafi community, those most visible out there in the Daw’ah, if they think one of their people did well in a debate it will be broadcasted all over social media. It will go viral. The after math of this debate is radio silence. If anyone thinks for an iota of a second that Jake won this debate surely the silence of the Athari/Salafi community is deafening. May Jake repent of the blasphemy he uttered during the debate and renew his Shahadah. May Allah (swt) bless Professor Andani, illuminate the way for him, forgive him and us, guide him and us.
Oh I see we are already playing games of censorship and control my Salafi friends?
Good thing I came prepared. For those of you who do not want to watch the debate (on a channel that blocks comments) I have uploaded the debate here:
Prima Quran 