Tag Archives: christianity

September 25, 2025 · 1:20 pm

The Mission of Jesus: To Whom Was He Sent?

“And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: “O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you.”(Qur’an 61:6)

“And appoint him a messenger to the Children of Israel.” (Qur’an 3:49)

 ﷽ 

From cover to cover, the Bible is a book for the Children of Israel, about the Children of Israel, and to the Children of Israel. 95% of the book is all about the Jews and Israel. There is about 0.5% of the entire book that is bothered to be dedicated to Gentiles.

Jesus was the last prophet sent to Israel.  His mission and objective was to be threefold.

A) To reach out to the lost sheep of Israel.

B) To instill a spirit of holy resistance against tyranny and oppression.

C) To tell the Children of Israel about the coming of Ahmad- The Praised One

“And he will go on before the Lord, and in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” (Luke 1:16-17)

Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” (Luke 19:9-10)

“You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is of the Jews.” (John 4:22)

“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls at pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.” (Matthew 7:6)

This comes under the teaching of judge,and you will be judged. It is clear that this is a reference for how Jews should deal with each other. It is clear because, within this context, Jesus’ attitude towards non-Jews is reflected by referencing them as dogs and pigs.

A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly. Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” (Matthew 15:22-23)

“My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” Jesus did not answer a word.

Can you imagine the level of disregard displayed here? The woman came with her daughter whose soul was vexed by a demon, and she was ‘suffering terribly’. Jesus was unmoved by her plight.

Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)

Again, there was absolutely no interest in helping a woman whose daughter was suffering terribly and was vexed by a demon.

“The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” (Matthew 15:24-25)

The woman comes herself and pleads to Jesus. He again is completely unmoved. Even puts the lady in the company of dogs.

Jesus never taught a non-Jew anything. There may be 4 or 5 examples of him healing someone, but he never taught a non-Jew anything. No time nowhere! 

“Yes, it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” (Matthew 15:27)

Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.”(Matthew 15:27-28)

Only once did the woman recognize her place as not being at the table but only as a dog taking the crumbs that her matter was attended to. Her faith or belief was in knowing her place.

THE ONLY COMMISSION OF JESUS: LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions:

“Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5-6)

“My people have been lost sheep; their shepherds have led them astray and caused them to roam on the mountains. They wandered over mountains and hills and forgot their own resting place.”(Jeremiah 50:6)

“Israel is a scattered sheep; the lions have driven him away: first the king of Assyria hath devoured him, and last this Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon hath broken his bones.”(Jeremiah 50:17)

Israel =Lost Sheep

Gentiles — The Greek word Ethnos, from where we get the word ethnicity and ethnocentric means ‘nations’. The non-Jews.

Source: https://biblehub.com/greek/1484.htm

Remember the attitude towards Gentiles:

“Wherefore remember, that you being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.” (Ephesians 2:11-12)

“It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”(Matthew 15:24)

THERE IS NO GREAT COMMISSION.

There could be no great commission to go out and evangelize the world because Jesus promised the people that the kingdom of God was coming before that very generation died.

    Christians will tell us that there is a great commission in Mark 16:15 and as well as Matthew 28:19.

    “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” (Matthew 24:34)

    Christian C.S Lewis called this the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.

    https://www.behindthegospels.com/p/surprised-by-cs-lewis-the-most-embarrassing

    “But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, You shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man come.” (Matthew 10:23)

    “And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.“ (Mark 9:1)

    “For this, we say unto you by the word of the Lord, then we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord, himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”(1 Thessalonians 4:15-17)

    THE SO-CALLED GREAT COMMISSION IS A FORGERY AND A CONTRADICTION.

    First point.

    Note that in Mark 16:15, and 20 there is no baptismal formula given.

    “And he said unto them, Go you into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:15-16)

    “And they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.”(Mark 16: 20)

    Second Point: Peter and tall tells.

    “And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, You went to men uncircumcised, and did eat with them. But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying, I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance, I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me: Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat. But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean has at any time entered into my mouth. But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God has cleansed, do not call common. And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven. And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me. And the Spirit urged me to go with them, do not hesitate. Moreover, these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man’s house: And he showed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell you words, whereby you and all thy house shall be saved. And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Inasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then has God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.” (Acts 11:1-18)

    “Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.” (Acts 11:19)

    Prima Qur’an Comments

    This entire narration of Acts 11:1-18 is sus through and through. Let’s examine why.

    First point.

    “And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, You went to men uncircumcised, and did eat with them.”

    If Jesus gave a great commission to the disciples, why would they be surprised that Gentiles received the word of God? Peter certainly didn’t need to go through some elaborate story to defend himself. He could simply remind them, “Yeah, remember when Jesus said, to go into the world and preach the Gospel to every creature?” And they could have responded, “Oh yeahhhh!” 

    Second point.

    Whereas we also note that, other than this one-off incident, it clearly states others were preaching ‘to none but the Jews only‘

    “The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ.”(Acts 10:36)

    Peter himself taught:

    He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.”(Acts 10:28)

    Third point.

    How can Peter be stating he had some vision about not eating things unclean when the New Testament itself is replete with the following message:

    “You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.” (Acts 15:29)

    Fourth point.

    “Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost”

    Why would Peter recall this and not recall:

    “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 28:19) Seems rather odd.

    Fifth point.

    ” they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then has God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.”

    Again, why would it be a surprise if Jesus did indeed tell them to go into the world and make disciples of all nations? 

    Jesus never directed his disciples to preach to gentiles.

    “And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen and them unto the circumcision.” (Galatians 2:9)

    “And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught many people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.”(Acts 11:25)

    Christians meant followers of Christ or those who emulate Christ.

    Yet, Christians’ don’t keep the sabbath as Jesus did.

    They eat pork and Jesus did not.

    Jesus prayed with his face to the ground and Christians do not.

    “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” (Exodus 20:8)

    Other than the Seventh Day Adventist, Christians in general do not observe the sabbath

    “But pray that your flight is not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake, those days shall be shortened. Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”(Matthew 24:20-24)

    When Jesus is talking about eschatological or end-time events, he is not imagining that the sabbath is broken, rather, it is being kept.

    “Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles!” (Acts 13:46)

    This is a direct violation of the commission of Jesus to the lost sheep of Israel as stated in Matthew 10:5-6.

    “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5-6)

    MATTHEW 28:19 GREAT COMMISSION AND “TRINITY” FORMULA IS AN INTERPOLATION

    “And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in the earth. Go you, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

    “And he said unto them, Go you into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned. And they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.”(Mark 16:15-16 and 20)

    However, John has it that the disciples were already baptizing people.

    “After these things came to Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea, and there he tarried with them, and baptized.”(John 3:22)

    (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)”(John 4:2)

    Peter never used the ‘triad’ formula when baptizing.

    Peter would baptize in the name of Jesus only.

    There is not a single occurrence of the disciples baptizing anyone according to the triad formula!

    “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”(Acts 2:38)

    (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)”(Acts 8:16)

    “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.”(Acts 10:48)

    “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”(Acts 19:5)

    Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea is known as The Father of Church History.

    Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2,which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:

    “But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go forth and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”

    Again, in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read:

    What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, “Go forth and make disciples of all nations in my name.”

    We know that Luke and John have no great commission formula.

    We know that Matthew 28:19 is corrected by Matthew 19:28

    “Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matthew 19:28)

    *note* not judging the whole of mankind but judging the 12 tribes of Israel!

    We know that the people were expecting the imminent coming of Christ Jesus.

    We know that Mark 16 had no baptismal formula.

    We know that Mark 16:9-20 has been removed from many of the biblical texts as a spurious addition. A footnote in the New International Version informs us:

    [The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]

    Source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016%3A9-20&version=NIV&quot

    We know that we have no records of the disciples using the Triad formula.

    We know that we do have New Testament evidence of disciples baptizing ‘in the name of Jesus.

    We know that the great Bishop Eusebius quoted from Matthew but without the Triad formula.

    We know that in the Gospel, according to John, Jesus’ disciples were already practicing baptism.

    We know that it is not feasibly possible to preach the gospel to the whole world when the disciples of Jesus were expecting his imminent return.

    We know that the earliest and best manuscripts of Christianity all have Matthew 28:19 containing the Triad formula.

    What we do not know is if there are manuscripts or evidence dated prior to the Athanasian creed that contain Matthew 28:19 as having a triad formula.

    THE NEW JERUSALEM A GLIMPSE OF THE FUTURE: NO DOOR FOR GENTILES!

    “One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues; came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb. “And he carried me away; in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west. The wall of the city had twelve foundations; and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” (Revelation 21:9-14)

    Prima Qur’an comments: John sees no gentiles in this picture

    Where is the gate for Paul and his gentile following?

    “Moses then wrote down everything the Lord had said.

    He got up early the next morning and built an altar ;at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel.”(Exodus 24:4)

    PAUL IS NOT AN APOSTLE ACCORDING TO LUKE:

    “May his days be few; may another take his place; of leadership.” (Psalms 109:8)

    Luke denies the office of apostle to Paul.

    For said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms:

    “May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it, ‘and, “‘May another take his place of leadership.’ Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism; to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”(Acts 1:20-22)

    Prima Qur’an comment: Paul does not mean that criteria at all!

    Luke contrasts Paul with the apostles.

    “This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.” (Acts 15:2)

    “The apostles and elders met to consider this question.” (Acts 15:6)

    “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers.”(Acts 15:22)

    JESUS WILL REBUKE THOSE WHO CLAIM TO BE CHRISTIANS

    “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,‘; will enter the kingdom of heaven; but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day,; ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?'”(Matthew 7:21-22 KJV)

    Whereas the Revised Standard Version 1881 reads:

    None of you who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord, ‘will enter the kingdom of heaven; but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’(Matthew 7:21-22 RSV 1881)

    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:17-18)

    Conclusion: The evidence is clear that Jesus was only sent to the children of Israel. He has nothing to do with you or me or anyone else on this Earth. He was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. If Jesus spoke of ‘the elect’ he would be talking about those whom God sent to Jesus as his disciples. There is no evidence that he is talking about some Motley Crue of Christians from all over the world.

    The great commission is self-evidently a forgery. The Bible is a book that concerns itself through and through with the history of the Jews and Israel as a whole.

    If you are interested in learning about the Blessed Prophet (saw) that was sent to the whole of mankind we would encourage you to read our article here:

    https://primaquran.com/2024/01/14/are-prophets-jesus-muhammed-foretold-in-the-old-testament/

    “When they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.” (Qur’an 5:83)

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

    4 Comments

    Filed under Uncategorized

    Tagged as , , , , , , ,

    September 23, 2025 · 3:30 pm

    The Qur’an is created: Collection of Articles.

    “Had We sent down this Quran upon a mountain, you would have certainly seen it humbled and torn apart in awe of Allah. We set forth such comparisons for people, perhaps they may reflect.” (Qur’an 59:21)

    ﷽ 

    The first thing you should understand dear reader is that this issue on rather or not the Qur’an is created or uncreated was not discussed by the Blessed Prophet (saw) himself.

    This issue was also not addressed by the noble companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw).

    This issue came about later. The Umayyads did not restrain the tongue of John of Damascus and it is via his machinations that this debate and intrigue came to the Muslims.

    Each side took a position and gave their proofs and justifications.

    As regarding making takfir of other Muslims on this issue.

    As our teacher, Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui, (Hafidhullah) taught us we do not make takfir of other Muslims on this issue.

    His Eminence Shaykh Dr Kahlan B. Nabhan al Kharusi, The Assistant Mufti of Oman, (Hafidhullah) has made our position clear:

    What is not in dispute between us and the Sunni Muslims.

    The things we both affirm about the Qur’an.

    • 1) That Allah (swt) has never been unable to produce speech from all eternity.
    • 2) That the Qur’an does not originate from any other than Allah (swt).
    • 3) It is his Word, His Revelation and that which He sent down.
    • 4) It was revealed in letters and words.
    • 5) It was revealed to the heart of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
    • 6) It is inimitable in its combinations and meanings. No human being can produce the like thereof.
    • 7) It has been narrated from the Blessed Messenger (saw) through firm tawatur

    If we are going to have a dispute with Sunni Muslims about something more serious than whether the Qur’an is created, we would dispute with them concerning their belief that we do not have the entire Qur’an.

    The Ibadi position is that we have the Qur’an Allah intended for us to have as well as the entire Qur’an.

    The Sunni position* is that we have the Qur’an Allah intended for us only. As much of the Qur’an had been lost, abrogated or outright forgotten altogether.

    Note * there are those who call themselves ‘Sunni’ who are not comfortable with the majority position and have pushed back against it.

    You can see, as a well-known Sunni apologist argues, that this is actually a miracle for Islam!

    Lost/Forgotten chapters of the Qur’an: A Proof/Miracle for Islam?

    Lost/Forgotten chapters of the Qur’an a Proof/Miracle for Islam?

    The Truth about the Qur’an: Created or Uncreated? (This article shows some of the proofs and evidences that each side uses to justify their position.)

    The Truth about the Qur’an: Created or Uncreated?

    The theological problems one side has.

    This discussion relates to some possible theological conundrums and challenges they can face when holdling the view that the Qur’an is eternal and uncreated.

    The position of Sunni/Atheist/Materialist. Allah is worthy of worship based upon auditory perception i.e the ability to be heard.

    The Created Qur’an: Yasir Qadhi, Salafis and Atheist.

    The Created Qur’an: Yasir Qadhi, Salafis and Atheist.

    The position of the Sunni/Neo Platonist. The Monad & the Logos

    An uncreated ‘Kun’ by which everything else is created. The ‘kun’ acts as the intermediary between Allah, the transcendant and the material world.

    However, the Sunni believe that this uncreated ‘kun’ is not identical to the essence of Allah nor other than Allah’s essence. In our view this is a step away from monotheism and a bridge towards Christology and logos theology.

    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)

    “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” (John 1:3)

    Thus for the Ibadi school. The Qur’an is created because Jesus is Not God.

    The Qur’an is Created because Jesus is Not God.

    The Eternal Word of Allah? Did Jesus pre-exist in Islam?

    The Eternal Word of Allah? Did Jesus pre-exist in Islam?

    The Ibadi follow the evidence that the Qur’an is created.

    The Ibadi follow the evidence that the Qur’an is created.

    Discussion on (ja’ala) making of the Qur’an in Arabic.

    Discussion on (ja’ala) making of the Qur’an in Arabic.

    A summary of views on the issue from: Ibadi, Muutazila, Ahl Sunnah & Jahmia.

    The Ibadi, Muutazila, Ahl Sunnah & Jahmia: Qur’an and attributes.

    Every word in the Qur’an is proof that is created by Allah

    Every word in the Qur’an is proof that it is created by Allah.

    Saudi translations cannot hide the fact that the Qur’an is created.

    Saudi translations cannot hide the fact that the Qur’an is created.

    Speech of Allah? Is the Qur’an Created? Ash’ari and Salafi perspectives.

    Speech of Allah? Is the Qur’an Created? Ash’ari and Salafi perspectives.

    Let’s attack Hamza Yusuf….in Ramadan? (The Qur’an is Created)

    Let’s attack Hamza Yusuf….in Ramadan? (The Qur’an is Created)

    Sunni Muslims try to convince a Hasidic Jew that the Qur’an is eternal and uncreated. You judge how that went.

    EF Dawah Discussion with Josh (Jewish) | Is the Quran Being Uncreated Against Tawheed?

    Allah’s Word Created or Uncreated? -Mohamed Hijab.

    Allah’s Word Created Or Uncreated? -Mohamed Hijab.

    Mohamed Hijab’s excellent argument against the Qur’an being uncreated.

    Mohamed Hijab’s excellent argument against the Qur’an being uncreated.

    Salafis/Atharis/Wahabbis fled from the Ibadi

    The ones in the ummah who make the biggest noise about this issue had chances to have two of their top people debate the issue with us and they fled!

    Shaykh Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz refused to debate with Shaykh Ahmed bin Hamad al-Khalili (h)

    The Qur’an: Created or Uncreated: Shaykh Ahmed bin Hamad al-Khalili to debate Shaykh Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz

    You can see this student of Bin Baz asking Bin Baz that he had the chance to refute Al Khalili(h) and show that he was upon batil (falsehood) so why did he not take it? Bin Baz replied but what if Khalili (h) has strong evidence then what?

    The way the following video is framed it paints a picture as if Bin Baz was the wise one in the situation. As if he was saying: “If I debate him he might have a stronger argument and this will cause the misguidance of many people.”

    See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GQa47p88nP0

    Saudi Dr. Saad Al-Humid Professor of Hadith Science in Medina flees from debate with Shaykh Saeed Al Qanoubi on the Creation of the Qur’an.

    Saudi Dr. Saad Al-Humid Professor of Hadith Sciences in Medina flees from debate with Shaykh Saeed Al-Qanoubi on Creation of Qur’an

    How can the Qur’an be eternal if the first thing created was the Pen, The Throne, Water, Spatiality, the Light of Muhammed. If any of these are in order then one comes before or one comes after.

    The First Thing Created: The Pen, The Throne and Spatiality.

    Noble Shaykh Khalid Al Abdali (h)has an excellent 10-part series in Arabic on the Qur’an being created.

    Conclusion:

    As a Muslim, regardless of whether it is created or not, your duty is to adhere to every single verse in it and believe in it all. We are to continue to ponder upon the Qur’an. To be transformed by it and healed by it.

    The Ummah has bigger challenges. Many Muslims today are being led astray. There are many expressions of Islam today, pseudo-groups who follow as Caliphs and Imams, people who do not even know how to recite the Qur’an. It is not even proven that these people know how to recite the Qur’an properly. Yet, people are being duped into following them.

    May Allah Guide the Ummah.

    May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

    Leave a comment

    Filed under Uncategorized

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

    September 22, 2025 · 3:30 pm

    The Qur’an is Created because Jesus is Not God.

    “Truly, the likeness of Jesus, in God’s sight, is as Adam’s likeness; He created (khalaqahu) him of dust, then said He unto him, ‘Be,’ and he was.” (Qur’an 3:59)

    ﷽ 

    The Qur’an is Created because Jesus is Not God. 

    That is to say, because Jesus (as) is not the uncreated word of Allah, neither is the Qur’an the uncreated word of Allah. 

    The Qur’an is Uncreated = Jesus is the eternal attribute of Allah.    

    This would mean, according to Sunni theology (Athari, Ash’ari, Maturidi), that Jesus is not identical to Allah’s essence, but he is not other than Allah’s essence either.

    Christian theology states that Jesus (as) existed as the Word of Allah before being placed inside of Mary (as).

    فِي البَدْءِ كَانَ الكَلِمَةُ مَوْجُودًا -In the beginning the Word (AlKalimat) Existed.

    وَكَانَ الكَلِمَةُ مَعَ اللهِ، -And the Word (AlKalimat) was with Allah.

    وَكَانَ الكَلِمَةُ هُوَ اللهَ. –And the Word (AlKalimat) was Allah.

    كَانَ الكَلِمَةُ مَعَ اللهِ فِي البَدْءِ – The Word (AlKaimat) was with Allah in the beginning.

    بِهِ خُلِقَ كُلُّ شيءٍ، -By Him all things were created.

    وَبِدُونِهِ لَمْ يُخلَقْ شَيءٌ مِمَّا خُلِقَ. -And without Him nothing would have been created.

    (John 1:1-3) from Arabic to English.

    Source: (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1%3A1-3&version=ERV-AR)

    يَلْبَسُ ثَوْبًا مَغْمُوسًا بِالدَّمِ، وَاسْمُهُ «كَلِمَةُ اللهِ -He wears a garment dipped in blood, and his name is “The Word of God.”

    Source: (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2019%3A13&version=ERV-AR)

     Is Jesus the created word of Allah or the uncreated word of Allah?

    “When the angels said, “O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word (bikalimatin)from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary – distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah]. (Qur’an 3:45)

    Jesus (as) is a word from Him.

    “And [the example of] Mary, the daughter of ‘Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into [her garment] through Our angel, and she believed in the words (bikalimati) of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient.” (Qur’an 66:12)

    Mary (as) is believing in the Lord and his words. Meaning they are not identical.

    “O People of the Scripture do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and a word (kalimatuhu) from Him which He directed to Mary and a soul from Him. So, believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.” (Qur’an 4:171)

    Jesus (as) is a word from Him.

    “And if anyone of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the (kalam al-lahi) Words of Allah.” (Quran 9:6)

    “Those who remained behind will say when you set out toward the war booty to take it, “Let us follow you.” They wish to change the (kalama l-lahi) Words of Allah.” (Quran 48:15)

    All these words come from the same Arabic trilateral root.

    ك ل م (kaf) (lam) (mim) Jesus is the created word of Allah (swt) just as the Qur’an is the created word of Allah (swt).  If someone was to believe that Jesus (as) is the uncreated word of Allah (swt), then that would be Christianity.  If someone was to believe that Jesus (as) is the created word of Allah (swt), that would be Islam and the path of safety.

    One of our teachers has known of people who have left Islam for Christianity.  You also encounter them online and some of them have said a study of the Qur’an helped in making that decision. We would submit that it was not the Qur’an that lead them to this decision but a certain theological perspective about the Qur’an and Jesus being Allah’s creation and command not being able to distinguish between the two. 

    We have never heard of a Muslim who believes that Allah (swt) alone is the Creator and everything else (including the Qur’an as being created) becomes a Christian. 

    So what we are looking for is consistency.

    On what consistent basis is Jesus ‘the word of Allah’ (kalimatuhu) created but the Qur’an (kalam al-lahi) ‘the words of Allah’ uncreated? Listen to what Mohamed Hijab says above. 

    “The word is actually defined as Kun.” -Mohamed Hijab

    If the word is defined as ‘Kun’, then according to the following Sunni Muslims, then Jesus (as) is the uncreated Word of Allah.

    We have actually had one Sunni Muslim brother from India (no doubt equipped with his Shaykhs and Alims) come and assert the following thinking it would be some powerful argument and not realizing they had erred in the following:come

    1) The lack of depth in understanding the Qur’an and Arabic.

    2) The bizarre theological implications of their view.

    So they advanced the following:

    “He is the One Who has originated the heavens and the earth, and when He wills to (originate) a thing, He only says to (lahu) it: ‘Be’, and it becomes.” (Qur’an 2:117)


    “All it takes, when He wills something ˹to be˺, is simply to say to (lahu) it: “Be!” And it is!” (Qur’an 36:82)

    So their argument was that if the ‘kun’ was created, then you would need another ‘kun’ to create that ‘kun’, leading to an infinite number of ‘kun’ regressing back through time.

    If this saying (of ‘Be’) had (itself) been created, then it would not be correct to (say that) the creations were created by it, because the creation is not created by a creature.

    Going back to the opening verse of this article:

    “Truly, the likeness of Jesus, in God’s sight, is as Adam’s likeness; He created (khalaqahu) him of dust, then said He unto him, ‘Be,’ and he was.” (Qur’an 3:59)

    A transliteration would be:

    inna mathala ʿīsā ʿinda l-lahi kamathali ādama khalaqahu min turābin thumma qāla lahu kun fayakūn

    The audio of it is here:

    A) It is not really explained by our interlocutors how the word ‘kun’ in which the sound ‘n’ is eternal when that sound itself is preceded by the sound ‘k’ , which presumably is eternal.

    B) One will not fail to note that in all the verses above (Q 3:59, 2:117, 36:82) that grammatically the structure of the sentence is that Allah (swt) is saying to the ‘lahu’ translated above as ‘he’ or ‘it. “Be!”

    Thus, they want us to believe that Allah (swt) is saying to his knowledge of all things (which exist for all eternity) to ‘be’ and it becomes!

    The meaning of ‘Be’ in the like of His saying, exalted, is He, “For to anything which We have willed, We but say “Be” then it is.” (Qur’an 16:40)

    This relates to the execution of His Will. Exalted is He, in respect of anything of the mumkinat (what is possible) in the context of giving it existence or completing it. It is explained by his Saing, “When We have willed’ i.e. When Our Will has conjoined with it in a way of execution (of the command). Because ‘when’ is for time in the future, and this is emphasized in His saying: “an naqula la-hu.”  (that We say to it), (Qur’an 16:40) which is in the imperfect tense which, when it is with ‘an’, means the future.

    It is known with certainty that whatever is since forever-like His Knowledge, His Power and His Life-the Will cannot be conjoined with it, because nothing can precede (what is eternal).

    And this is emphasized by His saying ‘fa-yakun’ (then it is), the connecting particle ‘fa’ meaning order and sequence. From this you know that His saying, exalted is He, ‘kun fa-yakun’, is, wherever it occurs, nothing but an indirect expression of the speedy response of things to Him, glorified is He, in accordance with the conjunction of His Will with these things. Otherwise, there is no utterance of kaf nun (kun) in the concrete sense (of utterance). If we accept that, then we will say that our discussion is about the Word revealed, such as the Qur’an, not the Word unrevealed.

    It is also a metaphor for the expediency of Allah’s creative command.

    “Allah created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days” (Qur’an 7:54).

    You may also read more on this subject here:

    The Truth about the Qur’an: Created or Uncreated?

    May Allah (swt) Guide the Ummah.

    May Allah (swt) Forgive the Ummah.

    Leave a comment

    Filed under Uncategorized

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

    September 19, 2025 · 2:04 am

    Adultery and Post Fornication Marriages -Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui

    “The fornicator marries none but the fornicator and the idolater marries none but the idolatress. This is all forbidden to the believers.” (Qur’an 24:3)

    ﷽ 

    One of the known positions in the Ibadi schoolis that one cannot marry a person whom they have committed fornication or adultery with. Rather, those people who have done so are to be punished, banished and then only to marry among those who have committed similar acts.

    Those who associate partners with Allah or worship other than Allah are to be married among themselves. Those Muslims who have committed adultery/fornication are to only marry those Muslims who have similarly committed acts of adultery/fornication. They are forbidden to marry the ones they have committed fornication/adultery with.

     Ad-Darooriyyat Al-Khams—The Five Basic Necessities that are protected and recognized by Islamic law-shari’ah. 

    The five necessities—religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property are defined.

    This ruling would fall under the category of: preservation of lineage.

    The following is a presentation put forward by our respected teacher, Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui. -May Allah continue to bless him and benefit us by him.

    marriages_after_zina-003 (1)Download

    left off pg. 27.

    If you notice, many English translations of this text seem convoluted. It gives the impression that if a Muslim man or woman committed fornication that they could marry an idol worshiper. Nothing can be further from the truth.

    We do want to comment that we personally feel that all translations and translators of the Qur’an have failed to convey what Qur’an 24:3 means and we have yet to see a translation that translates the meaning accurately. We put this right up there with Qur’an 4:157 as the worst translated text that translations and translators have failed to convey.

    One may see for themselves the disparate translations of Qur’an 24:3 here:

    https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/24/3/

    The major reason why we loath all translations of Qur’an 24:3 is that when you look at it:

    “The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress.” It gives the impression that a Muslim male or female or committed fornication has two options for his/her future.

    a) marry a believer who has done a similar offense.

    b) marry a mushrik who has done a similar offense.

    We would translate it as: “The fornicator marries none but the fornicator and the idolater marries none but the idolatress.” The reason that the mushirk is put in this context is to show the level of disdain that Allah (swt) has for people who commit fornication.

    Looking at the verse itself:

    “T”The fornicator marries none but the fornicator and the idolater marries none but the idolatress. This is all forbidden to the believers” (Qur’an 24:3)

    1. The believer does not marry the mushrik
    2. The believer who commits fornication marries only a believer that similarly has committed fornication. 

    What becomes very strange is how some will agree to point 1. They will say yes, a believer can never marry a mushrik. Yet, those same people will say, but a believer who has committed fornication can marry a believer who has not done such an act! 

    This is clearly inconsistent. 

    We wanted to comment on two sections of this article. The first is the following paragraph.

    “There are cases where some men pursuing an illegal sexual relationship, trick and deceive women that resist their sexual advances. The most commonly deceptive trick used by these men is to entice women into fake marriage proposals in order to coerce an unlawful relationship with them. Many women, especially younger women, are duped by these men, so they accept and yield to their seduction only to realize later that it was an utter lie.” -Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui

    “It is logically conceivable, therefore, that the legalization of post-fornication and post-adultery marriages has been an open invitation for committing adultery among young Muslim men and women. The permissibility of post-fornication and post-adultery marriages has been the reason for moral corruption and carefree attitude among young people when it comes to sexual relationships. In such societies, men see no consequences for their conduct; and a gullible woman thinks she will be rewarded with marriage by succumbing to a pre-marriage sexual relationship. She will have no reason not to believe, since the society she lives in has accepted such marriages. Had the idea of the impermissibility of post-fornication and post-adultery marriages prevailed in Muslim societies and been entrenched in their culture, a Muslim woman would not have been taken advantage of: she could recognize a lie when she heard it. She could respond to it by saying that post-fornication and post-adultery marriages are not allowed in the Islamic religion. So the fact is that there will be no marriage between us after we engage in an illegal sexual relationship.” -Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui

    Prima Qur’an comments:

    The above paragraph are very sound in reasoning. Our respected teacher, Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui has made a very forceful argument.

    “That is because each of the two partners, in such marriages, is most likely to doubt the other to be an adulterer, since as adulterers they found each other prior to their marriage. The fact that one spouse knows what mischief the other spouse is capable of doing can be utterly destructive to their mutual trust and mutual respect, and eventually to the marriage itself. Thus, it can be conclusively said that mutual trust and mutual respect lead to happiness and tranquility in any marriage. Conversely, the lack of trust and respect between spouses, which could be very much the result of their premarital mating, nourishes the meltdown of love and increases tension in the marriage.” -Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui

    Prima Qur’an comments:

    Here we disagree with our respected teacher because the reasoning is not sound.

    It is not explained how a person who has committed fornication/adultery and then marries another person who has similarly committed fornication/adultery would not suspect their spouse of mischief. After all, the reason they know they are able to marry each other is because of the very fact that both are equal for doing the same sin.

    Meaning the only reason I have access to you for marriage is because you have been guilty of committing the exact same thing that I have been found guilty of.

    Note — this is not an argument against the fiqh position; this is an argument against the use of rai’ (reason) that does not seem to follow through.

    By limiting those who have committed fornication/adultery to marrying only those who have similarly done such things, it is one possible safety measure to stop the spread of sexual infectious diseases. Or, perhaps, to allow those who may have contracted an infectious sexual disease to enjoy the fruits of marriage and companionship among themselves. 

    The position is strong the practical implimentation is wanting.

    This particular position in our school is very strong. We do not dispute this point. However, our school would struggle with practical implimentation of this ruling.

    No one is saying that a person who committed fornication can never get married, but if the ruling is that they can only marry someone who has similarly committed fornication (not the one they did the deed with), how does this work?

    Those in our school who hold this position there is a real disconnect here between the ruling and the practicality. This is especially true when we consider the following.

    1. Islam does not encourage one to broadcast the sins that Allah (swt) has covered.
    2. Islam allows for and encourages the safeguard of one’s honour.

    A brother or sister does not necessarily approach friends or respected elders and say: “Excuse me, I have committed fornication. Do you have anyone among your friends or relatives that has committed fornication that is looking to get married?” 

    There is an encounter that was mentioned to me concerning Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h). He was in the middle of Oman and approached by a man from the Hanafi school. The man said, “Oh Shaykh, I have committed Zina and I really love this woman and I want her to be the mother of our children.” The Shaykh replied to the man: “May Allah give you better than her.”

    Though it is not polite to say to the man’s face, we imagine that the Shaykh also thought: “May Allah give her better than you.”

    Jabir reported Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying:

    There is a remedy for every malady, and when the remedy is applied to the disease it is cured with the permission of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious.

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:2204)

    Do note that this is a widely known position in the school. There are other voices in the Ibadi school that do not agree with the above position. If you are thinking of adopting the school or have questions on this matter, kindly consult a scholar of the school.

    You maybe interested in reading the following:

    Which Mushriks can Muslims marry?
    Did Imam Al-Shafi’i say you could marry your own daughter?
    The position of the Ibadi school on marrying Ahl Kitab
    Blowing on Knots. Saving Muslim Marriages
    Can a child of fornication/adultery be an Imam? Ismaili Shi’a & Ibadi views.

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

    Redundant Revelation? The Question of Polygyny in Islam

    May Allah Guide the Ummah.

    May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

    9 Comments

    Filed under Uncategorized

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

    September 10, 2025 · 7:31 am

    Adoptionist Theology: How did Jesus Become The Son of God?

    “And they say: The Beneficent has adopted a son. Glory be to Him! Nay, they are honored, slaves.”(Qur’an 21:26)

    “But the Jews and the Christians say, “We are the children of Allah and His beloved.” Say, “Then why does He punish you for your sins?” Rather, you are human beings from among those He has created. He forgives whom He wills, and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them, and to Him is the [final] destination.” (Qur’an 5:18)

    ﷽ 

    “They say: “(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!” Indeed you have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, That they should invoke a son (like-kind) for (Allah) Most Gracious. For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a (like-kind) son.” (Qur’an 19:88-92)

    “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)

    THE BIBLE’S POSITION

    “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever shall believe in him will not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16 King James Version)

    What does begotten mean? (According to the English language)

    Answer: Begotten is a past participle of beget.

    Beget begot, begotten: To become the father of: sire

    Sire 1: Father 2: The male parent of an animal (as a horse or dog) sired, siring, PRO-CREATE

    Source: (The Merriam Webster’s Dictionary For Large Print Users)

    Beget – give birth to

    Source: (Webster’s Dictionary)

    It is indeed blasphemous to ascribe offspring to the Almighty Allah. It is also insulting to the human intellect of any rational person. All Christians of every sect believe Jesus is the ‘Son of God’.

    Allah declares that ascribing a son or any offspring to him is a thing most blasphemous.

    We as human beings have children to pro-create our species, and to ensure that humanity survives. We will all die; therefore it is a necessity that sons and daughters take our place.

    However, Allah is Ever-Living and needs no such means for survival.

    Christians will object and say this is a misrepresentation of their beliefs. Yet, they will claim we know it means ‘Sired by God’, but that is not what we believe!

    What does begotten mean? (According to the Greek language)

    The references for both are as follows:

    Source: (https://biblehub.com/greek/3439.htm)

    Source: (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/3-16.htm)

    Their own dictionaries describe Christ Jesus as God’s ‘offspring’ and ‘stock’.

    We will now walk through the development of this all-important Christian concept. We will show conclusively how an innocuous expression ‘Son of God‘ became Jesus ‘The Son of God’ in the very theologically loaded sense that it is today.

    This very belief latter transforms into ‘God the Son’ the second member of the ever infamous Tri-theistic Trinity of the Athanasian Creed.

    SONS BY THE TONS

    As Sheikh Ahmed Deedat used to say:

    The terms ‘Son of God’ and ‘children of God’ are often used throughout the Bible.

    EXAMPLES:

    “You are children of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 14:1)

    “He shall build a house for my name, and he shall be my son, and I will be his father.” (I Chronicles 22:10)

    “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.” (Job 1:6)

    “I have said, you are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High” (Psalms 82:6-7)

    “...For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.” (Jeremiah 31:9)

    “Have we not one father?” “Has not one God created us?” (Malachi 2:10)

    “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the sons of God” (Matthew 5:9)

    “For unto which of the angels, said he at any time, You are my Son, this day have I begotten you? And again, I will be to him A FATHER, and he shall be tome A SON?” (Hebrews 1:5)

    Prima Qur’an Comments:

    In none of the above quotations are the terms ‘children of God’ or ‘Son of God’ understood to be non-allegorical. So why in the case of Jesus is he understood to be the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’.

    If you will pay special attention to the last quotation of Hebrews 1:5 you will see that Jesus is ‘A’ Son and God is ‘A’ Father unto him. It does not say Jesus is ‘THE’ Son and God is ‘THE’ father of Jesus.

    The reason why Jesus is ‘a’ son and God is ‘a’ father has to do with adoptionist theology.

    Jesus a righteous man or ‘son of God’?

    When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matthew 27:54)

    “The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.”(Luke 23:47)

    So we can see that Matthew and Luke report the centurion saying two different things? So is this a contradiction or an acceptable allegory? We would say that this is not a contradiction it is an acceptable allegory. That ‘son of God’ simply meant a righteous servant, one near to God.

    Son of God or Slave of God?

    “And they say: The Beneficent has adopted a son. Glory be to Him! Nay, they are honored, slaves.“(Qur’an 21:26)

    “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.

    WHAT IS ADOPTIONIST THEOLOGY?

    Adoptinonist theology:

    Adoptionist refers to a person who believes that Jesus became the Son of God at his baptism, while adoptionism is the theological doctrine that Jesus was born a mere mortal and was later adopted as the Son of God.

    What are the text used in the Bible to support this view held by early Christians?

    “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to Me a son; so that when he goes astray I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the sons of Adam.” (2 Samuel 7:14)

    Prima Qur’an comments:

    1. I am not currently his father but I will be.
    2. He is not currently my son but he will be.
    3. I will be to him ‘a’ father. Not ‘the’ father.
    4. He will be to me ‘a’ son. Not ‘the’ son.
    5. If he goes astray he will be chastened.

    Here we have a concept of God appointing someone to be his son, or we may say a righteous servant.

    This is also stated in Psalms 2:2 and Psalms 2:7 in a reference to King David.

    “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed.” (Psalms 2:2)

    “I will declare the decree: the Lord has said unto me, You are my Son; This day have I begotten you.” (Psalms 2:7)

    Note: It has this day I have begotten you. It is being said to King David while he is alive and a grown adult. David was appointed by adoption to be the ‘son of God’.

    A THEOLOGY TAKES SHAPE

    We will now show how ‘Son of God’ in New Testament theology takes a total and complete departure from how ‘Son of God’ was used in the Old Testament.

    Now I will give you the proof text which shows how Jesus went from being the adopted ‘Son of God’ to the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’.

    ADOPTIONIST THEOLOGY BEHIND THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

    “And there came a voice from heaven, saying, YOU ARE my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:11)

    Note: The voice from heaven addressed Jesus. The Greek for YOU is su (SU).

    “And there came a voice from heaven, saying, “THIS IS my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Mathew 3:17)

    Note: The voice from heaven talks about Jesus. The Greek for THIS IS outos (HOUTOS).

    Question: Why the change in voice?

    Why would one writer deliberately alter the wording of the text?

    Answer: The theology!

    Mark’s theology held that Jesus became the ‘Son of God’ at baptism, much like David’s coronation in 2 Samuel 7:14

    Matthew’s theology held that Jesus was already the ‘Son of God’ based on the virgin birth.

    So Jesus does not need to know who he is. Thus, the voice is changed from “You are my son” to an announcement to the ignorant crowd: “This is my son.”

    The Qur’an and the Gospel of Luke reject Matthew’s claim.

    Note: Look at the Gospel of Luke and Qur’an say in response to Matthew’s claim about Jesus being the ‘son of God’ based upon the virgin birth.

    “And they had no child because Elizabeth was barren, and they were now well stricken in years.” (Luke 1:7)

    “And Zacharias said unto the angel, how shall I know this? I am an old man, and wife is well stricken in years. And the angel answered said to him, “I am Gabriel who stands in the presence of God; I am sent to speak unto you and to show you glad tidings.” (Luke 1:18-19)

    (His prayer was answered): “O Zakariya!” We give you good news of a son: His name shall be Yahya: on none by that name have We conferred distinction before.” He said: “O my Lord”! How shall I have a son, when my wife is barren, and I have grown quite decrepit from old age?” He said: “So (it will be) your Lord says, ‘that is easy for Me: I did indeed create you before when you had been nothing!‘” (Qur’an 19:7-9)

    Prima Qur’an Comment: Allah asks Zechariah to reflect upon the fact that he was created indeed before he was nothing

    “Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. She said: “I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah.” He said: ” I am only a messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a holy son. She said: “How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?” He said: “So (it will be): Your Lord says, ‘that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us’: It is a matter (so) decreed.” (Qur’an 19:16-21)

    “The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was.” (Qur’an 3:59)

    Prima Qur’an Comment: All glory to be to Allah! Allah explains things in a very simple manner for Christians. Allah says that Adam was made from dust(nothingness) and he was simply willed into being. Thus, as Allah (swt) made Adam from nothingness, likewise Christ Jesus, as the word of Allah, is the created word of Allah. Just as all of Allah’s words are created. Jesus, as the kalim of Allah, was created from nothingness.

    THE CREATION OF 5 TYPES OF HUMAN BEINGS:


    1) Adam was made without a man or a woman and not divine!

    2) Eve made without a woman and not divine!

    3) Jesus made without a man and not divine!

    4) Isaac and John made while their parents were old, infertile, and not divine!

    5) The rest of humanity is made of man and woman and not divine!

    THE LUKE FACTOR…

    Luke’s version of the baptism of Jesus:

    “And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, YOU ARE my beloved Son; in you, I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:22)

    Note:

    1) Luke has the story of the virgin birth

    2) Luke has Jesus addressed ‘you are’.

    “A few MSS [“D”, “o”, “b”] and Patristic citations representing the “Western” text, have, instead of (You are my beloved Son, in you, I am well pleased), the words of Psalms 2:7, You are my son this day have I begotten you.

    “Numerous expositors (e.g. W. Mason, Zahn, Klostermann, Harnack, Moffat, Streeter) accept this variant reading as the original. The majority then explain the alteration of the text from the fact that copyists regarded these words as a contradiction to the reality of the virgin birth.”

    Source: [The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke by Norval Geldenhuys p. 148]

    Prima Qur’an Comment: If we take the above evidence, then the baptism of Jesus (according to Luke) would look like this:

    “And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, “You are my son, this day have I begotten you”. (Luke 3:22)

    This would mean that Jesus became the ‘son of God’ at his baptism as an adult in the same way David became the ‘son of God’ as an adult.

    Let’s continue…

    “More important still is the fact that the heavenly voice which greeted Jesus at his baptism hailed him in the opening words of the decree of Psalms 2:7 ‘You are my Son’ Mark 1:11”

    “Indeed, the “Western” text of Luke 3:22 represents the fuller wording from Psalms 2:7 which is quoted here by the author of Hebrews 1:5”

    “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, You are my Son. “This day have I begotten you?” (Hebrews 1:5)

    “The words were evidently in widespread use as a testimonial in the apostolic age, as Acts 13:33 bears witness, and not only these words but the other parts of psalms were given a messianic interpretation, as may be seen from the quotation and explanation of its first two verses in Acts 4:25.

    Source: [The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews FF. Bruce]

    “God has fulfilled the same unto us, their children, in that he has raised Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalms, You are my Son, this day have I begotten you.” (Acts 13:33)

    “Why does the heathen rage, and people imagine a vain thing? “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his ANOINTED.” (Psalms 2:1-2)

    “Who, by the mouth of your SERVANT David, has said, Why DID the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? “The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his CHRIST.” (Acts 4:25-26)

    Note: Some important points need to be made.

    David was called ANOINTED (Christ). Also, Luke says David was a SERVANT (Slave) of God. This also means Jesus is like David: He is Anointed, meaning appointed by God. Jesus is also the Servant (slave) of God!

    Let’s continue…

    “Likewise, certain early manuscripts of Luke quote all of Psalms 2:7: Luke 3:22 in Codex Bezae, and certain old Latin Manuscripts used by Justin, Clement, Origen, and Augustine read, “You are my Son this day have I begotten you.”

    But interestingly, Luke also used Psalms 2:7, in a speech composed for Paul.

    In Paul’s theology, Jesus was “DECLARED to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4)

    “Luke apparently knew of this Pauline teaching for he has Paul quoting Psalms 2:7 as a speech uttered to Jesus at his resurrection, and not his baptism! Acts 13:32-33

    “For Luke and Paul Psalms 2:7 is a RESURRECTION prophecy and not a BAPTISM prophecy.”

    Source: (Gospel Fictions: Randel Helms pg. 32, 38)

    LUKE: He sees the water Jesus is baptized in as ‘the grave’. When Jesus comes out of the water, it is his ‘resurrection.’ The water is symbolic: of ‘being washed by the blood’ of Jesus.

    MARK: believed Jesus to be the adopted ‘Son of God’. In the same way, David was the adopted ‘Son of God’, Thus Jesus became the ‘Son of God’ at his baptism.

    MATTHEW: believed Jesus was the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’ based on the virgin birth.

    LUKE AND PAUL: believe Jesus was the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’ based on his resurrection from the dead.

    Note: Paul said Jesus was ‘Declared’ to be the ‘Son of God’ not that HE WAS the ‘Son of God’

    Source: Romans 1:3

    What do Christians mean: Jesus is the ‘Son of God’?

    Examination time!

    We have already seen what begotten means. Not only this but every modern translation of the Bible does away with the term ‘begotten‘?

    Why?

    Answer:

    1) Because David was called, ‘the begotten Son of God’: in Psalms (2:7). You cannot have Jesus be the ‘only-begotten’ when David is already begotten.

    2) Hebrews 11:17

    “By faith, Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the promise offered up his only-begotten son.”

    1. a) This is a flat contradiction because Ishmael was begotten before Isaac was.
    2. b) Or this is not to be understood as allegorical.

    We know this is not understood literally. Isaac is not the only-begotten son; just as Jesus is not the non-allegorical ‘son of God’.

    Question: Is Jesus ‘eternally begotten’ by the father?

    Answer: No!

    Hebrews 1:5

    For unto which of the angels said he at any time, You are my Son?” This day have I begotten you?”

    Prima Qur’an Comment: Jesus cannot be ‘eternally begotten’ by the father when this passage clearly states ‘This day’ have I begotten you. Indeed, one would wonder what day that is.

    Tertullian did not believe in the eternality of the son.

    For example, to me, it is very clear that Tertullian did not believe in the eternality of the son based upon the following:

    “Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father.”

    Source: (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0313.htm)

    When the Church decided upon the doctrine of Tri-theism they had to make Jesus co-equal and co-eternal with the father in so doing the doctrine of adoption created huge problems for them. Not only this but if Jesus was indeed begotten ‘this day’ he would not be co-eternal. This is why the Church called Jesus ‘eternally begotten’.

    There is no Greek text to support the idea that Jesus is ‘eternally begotten‘ That is why to meet the strong arguments of Bishop Arius his fellow Christians could only respond with two things:

    1. Violence.

    2. Use an oxymoron ‘eternally begotten‘.

    The Greek text is monogenes

    How do other Bibles translate John 3:16

    “For God so loved the world that he gave his only son (or the unique son of God), that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have life eternal.” [The Living Bible] John 3:16

    “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” [New International Version] John 3:16

    “For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” [Revised Standard Version] John 3:16

    “For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” [The New American Bible] John 3:16

    Note: All of the above translations say something like ‘Only Son’ or ‘Unique Son’.

    1. a) Either this is a flat contradiction because, as shown from Hebrews 1:5 Jesus is ‘A’ Son not ‘Thee’ Son of God.
    2. b) Or this is to be understood as allegorical!

    We know this is not to be taken nonallegorically. Jesus is not the only son because, as already proven, God has many ‘sons’.

    As far as the ‘Unique Son’ is concerned, every ‘Son of God’ is unique! So, once again, Christians are at a loss to explain how Jesus is the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’.

    Remember that Jesus never once claimed to be the ‘only son’ of God!

    Christians started to see the problem with John 3:16 translations. In a classic debate between Christian televangelist Jimmy Swaggart and Muslim debater Ahmed Deedat, Swaggart anticipated a possible question of Deedat by saying the following:

    @ 8:53 minutes “Now I want to start this off tonight by quoting a passage of scripture that Mr. Deedat and myself disagree somewhat over. But which is one of if not the dearest passage in the word of God to the world of Christendom. Found in St. John 3:16

    “For God so loved the world that he gave his only unique Son (Fooled you there Mr. Deedat), his only unique son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlA22NNFlDw

    CONCLUSION:

    The Christians should repent to Allah for every ascribing a non-allegorical son to him. Glory be to Allah who has not adopted a son or daughter! It can be seen how Jesus was called the ‘Son of God’ in the same way that previous people were called ‘Sons of God’.

    However, this concept slowly evolved from being the adopted son of God into Jesus being the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’ and eventually led to him being ‘eternally begotten God’

    May Allah bring the people out of the great darkness into the light. May Allah guide us to the truth!

    “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)

    Back to main section: https://primaquran.com/christianity/

    You may also be interested in reading:

    Does Allah need a wife to have a son?

    https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/the-evidence-to-reject-the-virgin-birth-of-jesus/

    https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/the-case-for-the-virgin-birth-from-the-quran/

    A Jewish Argument against the Qur’an.

    May Allah Guide the Ummah.

    May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

    6 Comments

    Filed under Uncategorized

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

    September 10, 2025 · 6:30 am

    A Jewish Argument against the Qur’an.

    “Also, mention when the angels said, “O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good news of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary – distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near to Allah. He will speak to the people in the cradle and in maturity and will be of the righteous. “She said, “My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?” The angel said, “Such is Allah; He creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is. (Qur’an 3:45-47)

    ﷽ 

    “Also, mention, in the book the story of Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place toward the east and she took, in seclusion from them, a screen. Then We sent to her Our Angel, and he represented himself to her as a well-proportioned man. She said, “Indeed, I seek refuge in the Most Merciful from you, so leave me, if you should be fearing of Allah. He said, “I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you news of a pure boy. “She said, “How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste? “He said, “Thus it will be; your Lord says, ‘it is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter already decreed.” (Qur’an 19:16-21)

    As Shaykh Ahmed Deedat (r) has mentioned in his Pamphlet “Is the Bible God’s Word?” page 11:

    We do not have the time and space to go into the tens of thousands of — grave or minor —defects that the authors of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) have attempted to revise. We leave that privilege to the Christian scholars of the Bible. Here I will endeavor to cast just a cursory glance at a “half-a-dozen” or so of those “minor” changes.


    1. “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14 – AV)
    The indispensable “VIRGIN” in the above verse has now been replaced in the RSV with the phrase “a young woman,” which is the correct translation of the Hebrew word almah. Almah is the word that has occurred all along in the Hebrew text and NOT bethulah, which means VIRGIN. This correction is only to be found in the English language translation, as the RSV is only published in this tongue. For the African and the Afrikaner, the Arab and the Zulu, in fact, in the 1500 other languages of the world, Christians are made to continue to swallow the misnomer “VIRGIN.”

    The argument goes (from the Jews) and the atheists, for that matter, that if the Gospel writer ‘Matthew’ had been inspired and directed by the Holy Spirit, then he (Matthew) would not have relied upon the Jewish Septuagint for the source of his quote.

    Technically, the word almah more than not was used for a young woman that could be married. Being a young, unmarried woman, it was often understood that she was not married and thus, a virgin.

    However, those who argue against this state that the word ‘bethulah’, which actually does mean virgin, should have been used in place of ‘almah’, which has the possibility of being a virgin.

    The website: Jews for Jesus has the following to say:

    https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/issues-v09-n01/almah-virgin-or-young-maiden/

    Whereas the web site Jews for Judaism as this short entry:

    https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/almah-virgin-and-parthenos

    We as Muslims could agree with our Christian apologist and say look, ‘almah’likely means ‘virgin’ and that is good enough.

    The reason that it is not good enough is that the author of the ‘Gospel According to Matthew’ had made some huge blunders when being reliant upon the Greek Septuagint.

    We will give a clear example: Believe us, there are many!

    “When they drew near Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass tethered, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them here to me. And if anyone should say anything to you, reply, ‘The master has need of them.’ Then he will send them at once. “This happened so that what had been spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled: Say to daughter Zion, ‘Behold, your king comes to you, meek and riding on an ass, and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’ “The disciples went and did as Jesus had ordered them. They brought the ass and the colt and laid their cloaks over them, and he sat upon them. The huge crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and strewed them on the road. The crowds preceding him and those following kept crying out and saying: “Hosanna to the Son of David; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; hosanna in the highest.” And when he entered Jerusalem the whole city was shaken and asked, “Who is this? “And the crowds replied, “This is Jesus the prophet, from Nazareth in Galilee.” (Matthew 21:1-11)

    This is disastrous. It is disastrous on several accounts. Whoever wrote the Gospel according to Matthew couldn’t have known the original Hebrew text. Instead, the Greek Septuagint was relied upon resulting in the mistaken belief that the so-called “prophecy” was about Jesus riding upon two donkeys!

    Again, look at what Christian scholars have had to say about the matter.

    4-5] The prophet: this fulfillment citation is actually composed of two distinct Old Testament texts, Isaiah 62:11 (Say to daughter Zion) and Zechariah 9:9. The ass and the colt are the same animal in the prophecy, mentioned twice in different ways, the common Hebrew literary device of poetic parallelism. Matthew takes them as two is one of the reasons why some scholars think that he was a Gentile rather than a Jewish Christian who would presumably not make that mistake (see Introduction).

    7] Upon them: upon the two animals; an awkward picture resulting from Matthew’s misunderstanding of the prophecy.

    The source is from: (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew28.htm)

    So why could this be a Jewish contention against the Qur’an?

    The Core of the Critique.

    The criticism, as we’ve laid out, follows this logic:

    The Christian Doctrine is Based on a Mistranslation: The Christian belief in a virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 relies on the Greek Septuagint’s translation of the Hebrew word almah (young woman) as parthenos (virgin), rather than the more precise Hebrew word for virgin, bethulah.

    Matthew’s Error Demonstrates Human Authorship: The author of the Gospel of Matthew (who used the Septuagint) further demonstrates his human fallibility by misreading Zechariah 9:9, thinking it describes two animals (an ass and a colt) instead of one animal described with poetic parallelism.

    The Qur’an is Therefore Derivative and Human: Since the Qur’an also affirms the virgin birth, the critic argues that its author simply borrowed this “mistaken” Christian doctrine, which itself is based on a Greek mistranslation of a Hebrew text. This, they claim, proves the Qur’an is a human document from the 7th century, not a divine revelation.

    The assumption that the Jew could make is that because Muslims believe in the virgin birth of Mary (May Allah honour her) that the “author of the Qur’an” simply copied the Christian doctrine — which in turn is based upon the Greek Septuagint and has no knowledge of the Hebrew text. Presumably, this makes the Qur’an all too human and not of divine authorship.

    The Qur’an is Independent and Authoritative, Not Derivative.
    This is the most critical point. The Qur’an does not seek to prove the virgin birth by referencing the Hebrew Bible. It does not say, “And this happened to fulfill what was said by the prophet Isaiah…” as Matthew does.

    Instead, the Qur’an narrates the event as a direct, fact revealed by Allah.

    We as Muslims have a straightforward response to this. That is that whoever wrote the ‘Gospel according to Matthew’ was quote-mining the Jewish sacred text to get legitimacy for Jesus as the Messiah. Whereas, for us as Muslims, the Qur’an stands independent of any justification for the miraculous birth of Christ Jesus.

    Muslims could agree with Christian apologists that almah can imply virginity. However, the Islamic position is stronger: We have no theological need to enter that debate. Our belief is not contingent on the interpretation of a single word in a text that could have been altered. Our belief is based solely on the clear, unambiguous words of the Qur’an:

    “She said, ‘How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?’ He said, ‘Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, ‘It is easy for Me…”” (Qur’an 19:20-21)

    The Qur’an uses the phrase “while no man has touched me” (وَلَمْ يَمْسَسْنِي بَشَرٌ), which is an explicit, clear statement of virginity that avoids the ambiguity of the Hebrew almah altogether

    In other words, Christ Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. This is our belief as Muslims who believe in the words of the Qur’an.

    This was a real event that took place. Where we part with the Christians is this:

    The Christians in particular whoever wrote the ‘Gospel according to Matthew’ felt a need to justify this event by reference to the Hebrew scriptures albeit reliance upon the Greek Septuagint.

    Conclusion:

    The mistakes of Matthew highlight the human process of trying to fit Jesus into Old Testament prophecies, sometimes through forced interpretations and errors from using a translation.

    The Qur’an, by contrast, displays none of this. It is entirely self-contained and authoritative. It does not make interpretive errors about Zechariah or Isaiah because it does not reference them in the first place. It simply states the truth of the event as revealed by Allah.

    Therefore, the argument that the Qur’an “copied” a mistake actually proves the opposite: its independence from the textual corruptions and human errors that affected the previous scriptures. The Qur’an’s account of the virgin birth is not evidence of its human origin but rather of its divine origin, as it provides a pristine, uncorrupted narrative free from the dilemmas of biblical scholarship.

    As Muslims, our belief in this stands apart from needing any proof text or citation from previous scriptures. With Allah is the success!

    May Allah (swt) guide the sincere among them so that they do not perish in ever lasting hellfire!

    May Allah Guide the Ummah.

    May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

    Leave a comment

    Filed under Uncategorized

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

    September 10, 2025 · 6:00 am

    Does Allah need a wife to have a son?

    “Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah 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)  

    ﷽ 

    “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)  

     This a verse that is frequently misunderstood and used for very different, often opposing, theological arguments. We have identified the core issue: the misinterpretation of the word ṣāḥibatun (companion) and the failure to read the verse in its full rhetorical and theological context. The verse not a statement of inability or a lesson in biology. It is a powerful rhetorical device intended to shatter human-centric, anthropomorphic conceptions of God.

    There are two categories of people who use this verse with two very different objectives.

    1. Christians use this to show that the Qur’an gets Christian theology wrong.
    2. Those that do not believe in miracles because they believe miracles violate the laws of causality. Thus, they want to negate the virgin birth of Christ Jesus.

    The first category.

    The Christian understanding is like the following:

    Christians have no concept of The Father as having a companion. It would mean from their misunderstanding of the verse that the Qur’an is the product of a human mind. It would mean that the Qur’an has no grasp of the Christian theological position.

    The second category.

    “Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan (d. 1898)
    This famous social reformer and educationist of nineteenth-century India denied that Jesus was born of a virgin”

    Source: (See his Commentary of the Quran Tafsir al-Quran, published by Munshi Fazl Din, Kashmiri Bazaar, Lahore, vol. ii, pp. 24–35. See the section titled ‘Muslim Newspaper Sidq’)

    Understanding the rhetorical question.

    “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)

    “How can Allah have a child, when He does not have a companion?”

    Now the very clear and sensible understanding of this rhetorical question is simple. One Creator being contrasted with the idea of having a companion.

    Who is Allah?

    “Say: “Allah Is Absolutely One.” Who is independent of all and whom all depend on. He does not bring forth like-kind nor was he brought forth from like-kind; And there is none comparable to Him.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)

    Who or what is the companion in the verse?

    Look at all the verb forms as well as the nouns and their use within the Qur’an.

    http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=SHb#(6:101:11)

    Ṣāḥibah (from the root Ṣ-Ḥ-B) carries meanings of companion, associate, partner, consort, or one who accompanies. In this theological context, it negates any notion of a divine partner, consort, or equal—not merely a spouse.

    We find it interesting that, usually, people have decided to translate the Arabic term ‘sahibatun’ as ‘wife’ rather than ‘companion’. The Arabic term ‘zawja‘ (wife) is not used in this context at all. Whereas we would have translated it as ‘companion’ and for good reason. Whereas those in categories 1 and 2 above tend to focus on the term ‘wife’.

    The way that these people have misunderstood the text, we either have to choose between some of the following options:

    A) A creator that is incapable: (May Allah pardon us)

    In other words Allah (swt) needs assistance in creating something.

    B) A creator that is like his creation: (May Allah pardon us).

    In other words Allah (swt) needs assistance in creating something.

    C) A creator that takes on gender roles: (May Allah pardon us)

    In other words if the companion is seen as a wife (zawja) than Allah (swt) is the husband.

    D) A Creator who is ignorant of Christian theology: (May Allah pardon us) /An argument against virgin birth of Jesus.

    In other words Allah needs a wife (zawja) in order to have a son. Which Christians do not believe. It would be a blatant misrepresentation of their beliefs. This argument is also used by those who want to argue against the virgin birth of Jesus (as).


    Dealing with proposition A. The Incapable Creator

    A creator that is incapable (May Allah pardon us)

    It contravenes the following verse:

    “His being alone is such that when He wills a thing to be, He but says unto it, “Be” — and it is.” (Qur’an 36:82)

    It seems a bit of a stretch to think that Allah (swt) would make an argument that he couldn’t have a son without a companion and yet create a vast universe from the command ‘Kun’.

    “It is not for Allah to take a son; exalted is He! When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, “Be,” and it is.” (Qur’an 19:35)

    It even contravenes the very verse that they quote to make their case!

    Resolution:  Allah’s creative power is absolute and uncaused. He does not require mechanisms, partners, or processes.

    Dealing with proposition B. The Creator Like Creation:

    The creator that is like his creation (May Allah pardon us).

    The following verse is sufficient to refute this.

    “There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)

    Resolution: An originator (badīʿ) is one who creates something without any prior model or precedent, emphasizing His utter transcendence and unlike-ness to creation.

    Dealing with proposition C. The Gendered Creator

    That the Creator takes on gender roles.

    So, if Allah (swt) is making a rhetorical argument about human relations, is Allah (swt) now taking on the role of the husband or the male progenitor? Be sensible people! Allah (swt) is drawing attention to the fact that he has no peer, no companion.

    Resolution: This is a result of the mistranslation “wife.” Islam completely rejects attributing gender or physical human characteristics to Allah. The argument is about divinity, not matrimony.

    Dealing with proposition D.  Ignorance of Christian Theology / Argument Against Virgin Birth.

    A Creator who is ignorant of Christian theology/An argument against the virgin birth of Jesus.

    Ironically, proposition D is also the position taken by those who want to deny the virgin birth of Christ Jesus in the Qur’an. So they (those who believe that miracles violate the laws of causality) have ironically sided with the Christian in their misunderstanding of the verse. Albeit to reach very different ends.

    Christians have no concept of The Father as having a companion. It would mean from their misunderstanding of the verse that the Qur’an is the product of a human mind. It would mean that the Qur’an has no grasp of the Christian theological position.

    The questions that are put forward by those who hold the view that the virgin birth (a miracle) would violate the laws of causality would be:

    Why can’t Allah (swt) have a son without a wife?

    To which the reply to this is:

    On what consistent basis could you make this claim if taking the verse as a whole?

    Another question for them would be: Based upon your interpretation of the verse, would you be opposed to the idea of Allah (swt) having a wife or a son based upon your logic?

    In other words, do you find it a theological impossibility for Allah (swt) to have a wife and/or a son?

    Another question for them would be:

    Why would Allah (swt) need to be like his creation in the process of bringing a son into being?

    Why not look at the whole verse? Why only quote part of it?

    “Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He does not have a companion, and He created all things? And He is, of all things, Knowing.” (Qur’an 6:101)

    First, Allah (swt) is the originator of the heavens and the earth. Do these people now believe that there was a wife or an associate, or a partner or a companion that helped Allah (swt) in this?

    What natural laws did Allah (swt) follow or was beholden to when creating our reality?
    The verse all says, “He created all things.”


    Why do people seek out companionship/friendship/associates and peers, to begin with? Ponder it.

    The need for companionship?

    “They say, “Allah has taken a child.” Glory be to Him! He is Self-Sufficient. Unto Him belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is on the earth. You have no authority for this. Do you say about Allah that which you know not?” (Qur’an 10:68)


    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. Allah (swt) is the Self-Sufficient!

    “There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)

    If Allah (swt) had a companion /associate/ or peer that 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). A walad or a child would be ‘like kind’.

    The following verse more than drives home this point.

    “Never did Allah take to Himself a son, and never was there with him any god– in that case would each god have certainly taken away what he created, and some of them would certainly have overpowered others; glory be to Allah above what they describe.” (Qur’an 23:91)

    That verse crushes the idea that Allah (swt) could even have a companion.

    “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)  

    As for those who believe that miracles violate the laws of causality and are trying to reinterpret scripture to appease atheists, 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).

    This is the same train of thought by those who believe miracles violate the laws of causality and therefore reject the virgin birth of Christ Jesus.


    The focus for people who use this text as an argument is on the word ‘walad’, whereas Allah (swt) is saying he doesn’t have a ‘sahibatun’, a companion to begin with.

    Resolution:

    Against Christian Critique: The Qur’an is not misrepresenting mainstream Christian theology. It is attacking the logical implication of the claim “God has a son.” From a purely logical, non-creedal standpoint, if a being has a son, that son must be of the same nature (a peer). The Qur’an argues that since Allah has no peers or companions (no other divine being), the concept of a “son” is logically incoherent. It challenges the metaphysics of the Trinity, not the biology of the Nativity.

    Against the Naturalist/Mu’tazilite Critique (e.g., Sir Syed Ahmad Khan): Those who deny miracles like the virgin birth because they “violate causality” profoundly misunderstand the verse. They interpret it as, “Allah needs a wife to have a son.” This is a catastrophic error. The verse is not providing the necessary condition for divine filiation (“a wife is needed”). It is rejecting the entire paradigm as impossible. Allah does not need a wife to have a son; He transcends the very category of having offspring altogether. The miracle of Jesus’s birth (ʿĪsā ibn Maryam) is a sign of Allah’s absolute power to create as He wills (Kun fa-Yakūn), outside of natural causality, which He Himself established. To use this verse to deny the virgin birth is to completely invert its meaning.

    Conclusion:

    The verse in question is a masterful rhetorical tool that:

    1. Affirms Surah Ikhlas:  Allah is One, Unique, without peer, partner, or companion.
    2. Denies Anthropomorphism: Allah is beyond human categories like gender and biological reproduction.
    3. Establishes Logical Coherence: The concept of “divine offspring” is metaphysically absurd because it requires a plurality within the divine, which is impossible for the One who created all things and has no equal.
    4. Upholds, Not Denies, Miracles: The power that created the heavens and the earth from nothing can certainly create a human being in a womb without a father. Denying this is a failure to understand Allah’s absolute power, which the verse itself emphasizes.

    The focus is not on the word walad (son) in isolation, but on the impossible pre-condition for it: a ṣāḥibah (companion). Since the pre-condition is impossible (Allah has no companion), the conclusion (Allah has a son) is also impossible. This is a definitive negation of any form of shirk (associating partners with God) while simultaneously affirming Allah’s limitless power to create as He wills.

    “Say: “Allah Is Absolutely One.” Who is independent of all and whom all depend on. He does not bring forth like-kind nor was he brought forth from like-kind; And there is none comparable to Him.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)

    For those interested, you may want to read the following articles:

    https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/the-evidence-to-reject-the-virgin-birth-of-jesus/

    https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/the-case-for-the-virgin-birth-from-the-quran/

    https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/a-jewish-argument-against-the-quran/

    https://primaquran.com/2023/12/30/adoptionist-theology-how-did-jesus-become-the-son-of-god/

    May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah.

    May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah.

    Leave a comment

    Filed under Uncategorized

    Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

    September 9, 2025 · 9:10 am

    Why Jesus Is Not The Name of God.

    “O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Isa, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So, believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.” (Qur’an 4:171)

    ﷽ 

    The name of God and the name of Jesus are distinctly different.

    “The victor I will make into a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will never leave it again. On him, I will inscribe the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, as well as my new name.” (Revelation 3:12)

    Prima Qur’an Comment:

    From the above text it can be seen that ‘the name of my God‘ AND ‘my new name‘ are distinctly different.

    This becomes obvious from the fact that Jesus is a common name, like John, James, or Peter. The above text of Revelation 3:12 was taken from a ‘Red Lettered‘ New Testament, where the words of Jesus are in red.


    JESUS IS NOT THE NAME OF GOD…

    Many times, our Christians tell us that Jesus is the name of God. It is a name ‘above every name’. After all, how can a person have a personal relationship with God if you don’t know the name of God? I guess that sounds reasonable.

    However, what most Christians are not aware of is the fact that the Hebrew language does not have a ‘J‘. So, if the Jews spoke Hebrew, you know they didn’t pronounce Jesus with a ‘J‘.

    The other point that is not realized so readily by our Christian sisters and brothers is that Jesus is really quite an ordinary name. It has no power in and of itself. It was a very common name then and it’s still a common name.

    In fact, seeing that Spanish is ranked as the number 3 language in the world, Jesus, pronounced ‘Hey Zeus,‘ is a very common name among men in the Latin American community.

    So, this is a rather uneventful name. It would be the equivalent of calling someone Chaz, or Lester or Herbert in English.

    Feel free to go to Google Translate and listen to how the name ‘Jesus’ is pronounced.

    Go to Google Translate and just listen to the name “Jesus” as it is pronounced in Spanish and Greek.

    Go to Google Translate and just listen to the name “Jesus” as it is pronounced in Spanish and Greek.

    Even more revealing is the fact that Jesus is a ‘bastardized’ (apologies for the terminology) Latin version of the name Yehoshua in Hebrew, or in other words, Joshua.

    The name Yeshua appears 29 times in the Tanach.

    Yehoshua (Joshua) of Nun is called Yeshua in Nechemyah (Nehemiah) 8:17. Yeshua is the name of the Cohain HaGadol (the high priest) in the time of Zerubavel in Ezra 3:2. It is the name of a Levite under King Hizkiyah (Hezekiah) in 2 Chronicles 31:15. There is even a city called Yeshua in the negev of Yehudah in Nechemyah11:26.

    Yeshua is also a shortened version of the word Yehoshua, much like Bill is for William.

    Before anyone gets angry with us using the word ‘bastardized’ in relationship to Jesus (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him), one must realize that the word ‘bastardized’ means—to modify, especially by introducing discordant or disparate elements.

    Source: http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/bastardize

    After all, you take a very common name, Joshua, which means — ‘God is my salvation’ and turn it into this Latin that sounds a lot like a former Greek god ‘Zeus’.

    Remember when the evangelist screams out in the name of ‘Jeeeee zuuus’. Or the Spanish speaker yells out on stage, “In the name of ‘Hey Zeus’.” Jesus /Zeus.

    Hey Zeus. Hail Zeus.

    HEY ZEUS! HAIL ZEUS!

    In the Qur’an the son of Mary is called ‘Isa‘ or ‘Esau‘.

    Recall that Hebrew was a dead language for a long time. It was only when Eliezer Ben Yehuda used the Arabic language to help revive Hebrew that it became a vibrant language again.

    Source: https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-eliezer-ben-yehuda-is-turning-in-his-grave-over-israels-humiliation-of-arabic-1.5472510

    “One prominent pioneer was Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, the famed Jewish lexicographer widely hailed as the reviver of modern Hebrew, and whose revivalist legacy rested on a genuine recognition of the essential role of Arabic in the rebirth and resurrection of modern Hebrew.“

    It is quite possible that some Christians may find it strange to use the name ‘Esau‘ or ‘Isa‘ in place of ‘Jesus‘ as there is a passage in the Bible that says that ‘God hates Esau‘.

    “The oracle of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi. “I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated.” (Malachi 1:1-3)

    God hates Jesus but loves Jacob?

    Imagine if in place of the word ‘Esau’ you had the word ‘Joshua’. You would have a very interesting passage in the Bible of God saying, “But Jesus, I hate.”

    Let’s continue with Eliezer Ben Yehuda.

    Since Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic are all based upon the same Semitic vowel system, Eliezer used the Arabic language.

    A language that was still living and had wide currency to decipher the pronunciation and understanding of the Hebrew language.


    “Jesus” was a common name back in the day. In Acts 13:6 there was a magician named Bar Jesus.

    “When they had travelled through the whole island as far as Paphos, they met a magician named Bar-Jesus who was a Jewish false prophet.”

    In Colossians 4:11 there was a contemporary of Paul called Jesus-Justus

    “And Jesus, who is called Justus, who are of the circumcision; these alone are my co-workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me.”

    Another interesting example of two people called “Jesus” side by side in the following text:

    So, when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” (Matthew 27:17).

    So, the people had the choice to have Jesus ‘son of the father‘ or Jesus ‘called Messiah‘ killed.


    So, the name “Jesus” was a common name, like John, James or Mary.

    This doesn’t sound like a ‘Name Above All Names’ to me. It sounds rather common and uneventful.

    Do Christians Feel Power in The Name of Joshua?

    We are whether we can call upon the name of Joshua and be saved? It is, however, the same as “Jesus”. Why should only the ‘bastardized‘ form of the Latin version of ‘Yehoshua‘ be the only name for salvation?

    In other words, is the Christian mission only done in English? No it is not!

    So, if there are Jews, wouldn’t they be screaming out ‘Yehoshua‘ in the congregation?

    That being the case, why couldn’t they scream out ‘Joshua‘ as it is the Anglicized form?

    Joshua Christ?


    Imagine using terms like Joshua Christ! Imagine Christian missionaries asking people to accept faith in Joshua? Imagine Benny Hinn jumping up and down and healing people in the name of Joshua! Or imagine John Hagee being slain in the spirit of Joshua Christ!

    What about the name Immanuel?

    Immanuel is also a common Jewish name which means ‘God is with us‘.

    Maher-shalal-hash-baz was called Immanuel in Isaiah 8:8

    “It shall pass into Judah and flood it all throughout up to the neck it shall reach; It shall spread its wings the full width of your land, Immanuel!”

    So, for Christians to say, “Hey look, there is a prophecy that says he will be called Immanuel, We can tell them that Maher-shalal-hash-baz was also called Immanuel.”

    In Matthew 1:23 we read: “Behold, the virgin shall be with a child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us“.”

    That this is an example of a failed prophecy plain pure and simple. It’s amazing the lengths that Christian apologists will go through to make this all add up.

    In the end, I think that the position of Islam and the Qur’an is very clear. ‘Isa is an Arabized form of the word ‘Esau’. He was born of a virgin named Mariam (Mary).

    There is much to be said about the fact that Christians use a name like Jesus (a common name like John, James, or Mary) when describing the ineffable name of the creator.

    Maybe there is a way out of this. Maybe, after all, The Creator is not a person, much less person(s).

    Since, after all, the words ‘person’ and ‘personality’ come from the Greek word ‘persona’ which means ‘a mask’. Think about it! Tri-Theist Christians believe in a God that is One Being that wears three masks.

    In the end, “Jesus” is just a common name, like Chuck, or Daryl or Lester.

    We sincerely hope people will read the Qur’an and learn as much as they can about Islam. We hope that Allah Most High opens the breasts and hearts of humanity and that Allah Most Merciful guides us all to what he loves.

    “And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.” (Qur’an 5:83)

    May Allah Guide the Ummah.

    May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

    Leave a comment

    Filed under Uncategorized

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

    September 9, 2025 · 8:30 am

    Text clearly show Jesus is not God and the Bible does not understand human reproduction.

    “For the truth stands out clearly from falsehood.” (Qur’an 2:256)

    ﷽ 

    Let us see which of you reading this are quick-witted to spot the problem. Given what we know about human reproduction, what is the obvious error in sending brother after brother to impregnate a woman that fails to get pregnant?

    Source: (Matthew 22:23-32)

    “If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.” (Deuteronomy 25:5)

    “Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.”  But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother.  What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.” (Genesis 38:8-10)

    “That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.  “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him.  Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.  The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.  Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” (Matthew 22:23-28)

    You can replace the seven brothers with ten brothers or even 25 brothers if you like.

    At what point does one realize that these men are not firing blanks but that this woman is infertile!

    The woman has some type of medical condition that is preventing her from getting pregnant. Now if someone wants to raise an objection, stating that in Genesis 38:8-10 Onan was spilling his semen on the ground (coitus interruptus) and that perhaps all the brothers were doing that, it doesn’t help the case either.

    1. Did not have the foresight to realize that people would do this, evading their responsibility?
    2. If the story of Onan was known, the men would realize that God would strike them dead. Thus, the ever looming wrath of God.  
    3. Surely the women are not so gullible as to not know whether a man is ejaculating in them or not.

    This law was before modern medicine in which we know that both a man and a woman may have issues of fertility. Given the low esteem that women are generally afforded in the Bible, it is not at all surprising to see the power of pro-creation as something that man is responsible for.

    If Jesus was God, he would be aware that both men and women have a part to play in human reproduction. 

    In the majority Christian view, Jesus shares the essence (being) of the Father and the Holy Spirit, which means that He (Jesus) gave those laws to Moses, proving further that he cannot be God and that the sacred text of the Jews and Christians are not free from egregious errors.

    Another point to take note of:

    The text has Jesus (as) say:

    “ Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.”  “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” (Matthew 22:29-30)

    It looks like Jesus is in error for not knowing the scriptures!

    However, the scriptures say:

    “And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” (Genesis 6:1-2)

    Jesus claims people will not marry nor be given in marriage being like the angels. Yet the angels themselves took human women as wives.

    Now, watch out for the curve ball they (some Christians will throw you) because they will say, “Oh, the text says,” Sons of God” not angels.   But angels are the sons of God. 

    You can see where they are used interchangeably here:

    https://biblehub.com/job/1-6.htm

    “One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.” (Job 1:6 New International Version)

    “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.” (Job 1:6 King James Version)

    Lastly, if they persist that sons of God refer to men, then this shows you it is an appellation referring to mortal human beings without any divine connotation.

    The Bible’s treatment of fertility is anthropologically conditioned and not scientifically precise.

    From a modern scientific perspective, if multiple brothers fail to impregnate the same woman, it is statistically improbable that all men are infertile (assuming they are fertile with other women). The most logical conclusion is that the woman has a fertility issue. This highlights an ancient misunderstanding of reproduction, where infertility was often attributed solely to the woman. However, the levirate law implicitly places the burden on the man’s lineage to continue, ignoring potential female factors.

    May Allah guide the sincere truth seekers.

    May Allah guide the Ummah.

    May Allah forgive the Ummah.

    Leave a comment

    Filed under Uncategorized

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

    August 29, 2025 · 3:30 pm

    Letter (e-mail) to Professor Todd Lawson on 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)

    ﷽

    This is a recent e-mail sent to Todd Lawson an Emeritus Professor of Islamic thought at the University of Toronto.

    For those unfamiliar. Professor Todd Lawson his cv-curriculum vitae can be found here: https://discover.research.utoronto.ca/27086-todd-lawson

    I sent this inquiry as I am genuinely curious as to why he or anyone for that matter think that the Qur’an 4:157 seem to be interacting with anything that the Romans have done, or that the text is talking about a historical event known as the “Crucifixion” or that the Qur’an is denying/or affirming anything about a Cross at all.

    Greetings Professor Lawson

    I hope this email finds you in the best of health. 

    I had read your book “The Crucifixion and the Qur’an: A Study in the HIstory of Muslim Thought.”

    It was certainly an interesting read. 

    You have noted how extraneous material has influenced the Sunni Tafsir tradition and popular interpretation of Qur’an 4:157. 

    So to this point I am curious as to why you think the Qur’an engaged with an historical event popularly known as “The Crucifixion” at all?

    The reason I ask this is because when one looks at the immediate text of the Qur’an 4:157 there does not seem to be any mention of Romans or Roman involvement at all.

    I am deeply interested why your good self or anyone would feel that the Qur’an 4:157 engages with an historical event popularly known as “The Crucifixion” at all. I believe that a reading of the text without extraneous material tells us that the text is interacting with certain Jews who were making certain claims about Jesus. 

    When we read Qur’an 4:155 for example:

    “They have incurred Allah’s wrath for their breaking the covenant, and their rejection of the signs of Allah and for slaying Prophets without right, and for saying: ‘Our hearts are wrapped up in covers-even though in fact Allah has sealed their hearts because of their unbelief, so that they scarcely believe.” 

    I believe we both concur that it would seem out of place for that text to address the Romans of the time of Jesus.

    Furthermore the Qur’an 4:157 has a double denial in the text. They did not kill him nor did they (salabu). The initial denial is general and it can easily accommodate any understanding of a possible demise of Jesus. 

    It is immensely curious to follow up a general denial that can accommodate any particular understanding of any possible demise of Jesus with a particular denial immediately after. 

    Is it not more sensible in keeping with the immediate text and surrounding text to see this as the Qur’an interacting with particular claims made by Jews about Jesus?  Rather these claims are based upon any historical event, document or even oral transmissions in certain circles that the Qur’an would be familiar with?

    Given that this seems to be the very obvious case, how do you propose somehow Romans, and a “Crucifixion” is posited upon the text of Qur’an 4:157?

    It is peculiar because Jews do not crucify people in their law. It is not a part of the Torah nor of the Talmud of which I am sure you are aware. 

    They do have laws about killing people and then impailing them. They do have assertions about those impaled being cursed by God. 

    Equally curious is the idea that (salabu) would translate to a Latin Cross, or the Tau Cross. 

    Given that the Qur’an in  (7:124); 20:71; & 26:49) all describe cutting off the hands and the feet and given what we know about supporting the body weight on an ecclesiastical “Cross” it is it not presumptuous of us to assume Latin Cross, Tau etc? 

    The two noun forms in Qur’an 86:7 & Qur’an 4:23 which relate to the loins and the lumbus region seem to forcefully argue with a type of punishment that would involve impalement rather than anything to do with being tied to a patibulum and affixed to a crux or stake and than having nails driven in ones hands and feet.

    When we look at the text of Qur’an 5:33 on page 31 of your book you state:

    “the criminal was killed by a separate means before their corpse was publicly displayed on a pike or cross.”   

    This does not seem to correlate to what Christians have in mind when they invoke the “Crucifixion” of Jesus. They seem to think this is a death on a cross and not a death prior to a cross. 

     I also felt that pike was more appropriate than cross given what we know about the Islamic legal schools. None of the legal schools, Ibadi, Zaydi, Zahiri, Shafi’i, Imami, Maliki, Hanafi or Hanbali make it a requirement to put someone on a patibulum and affix that patibulum to a crux or stake and than proceed to drive nails in the hands and feet.

    Much more can be said. Again I believe my initial inquiry is that if we do a plain reading of Qur’an 4:157 or even invoke the immediate context where are we drawing upon the idea that this is interacting with something the Romans are said to have done to Jesus? 

    Thank you for your time. 

    Have a blessed weekend ahead.

    If you would like to read more on this subject I invite you to read the following:

    The Jews Don’t Crucify People. Great exchange with Rabbi Dov Stein.
    Crucifixion or Impaled? Understanding Qur’an 4:157

    May Allah Guide the Ummah.

    May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

    Leave a comment

    Filed under Uncategorized

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