“And they say, “Never will the Fire touch us, except for a few days.” Say, “Have you taken a covenant with Allah? For Allah will never break His covenant. Or do you say about Allah that which you do not know?” Yes, whoever earns evil and his sin has encompassed him – those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally.” (Qur’an 2:80-81)
“Allah effaces whatever He wills and retains whatever He wills. With Him is the Mother of the Book.” (Qur’an 13:39)
﷽
Some questions/objections that are raised by some on this particular subject.
For us the matter is clear, crystal clear.
The hellfire is eternal for who ever enters it.
Our creed is taken from clear verses and not verses subject to multiple interpretations.
Objections are based upon interpretations or emotive in nature.
There is not a single verse anywhere in the Qur’an that believers (mumin) enter the hellfire.
There is not a single verse anywhere in the Qur’an that the ungrateful (kafir) enter heaven.
The Qur’an has to be in harmony with all its verses.
Allah has prescribed mercy for himself.
You often see this quoted in discussions about the eternal suffering of the kafir. However, you usually do not see the verse quoted in its fullness.
“When the believers in Our revelations come to you, say, “Peace be upon you! Your Lord has taken upon Himself to be Merciful. Whoever among you commits evil ignorantly then repents afterwards and mends their ways, then Allah is truly All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 6:54)
“Say, “Unto whom belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and on the earth?” Say, “Unto Allah. He has prescribed Mercy for Himself. He will surely gather you on the Day of Resurrection, in which there is no doubt. Those who have lost their souls, they do not believe.” (Qur’an 6:12)
They will also quote the following hadith:
“Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “When Allah had finished His creation, He wrote over his Throne: ‘My Mercy preceded سَبَقَتْ (sabaqat) = preceded My Anger.’
When Allah created the creation as He was upon the Throne, He put down in His Book: Verily, My mercy predominates تَغْلِبُ (taghlibu) = prevails over / overcomesMy wrath.
First, it should be noted that none of those texts promise an eventual exit or release from hell at all. Neither do any of those texts promise anything about the punishment of hellfire being diminished.
This is completely subjective. There is no measurable scale. One could just as easily argue that Allah sparing no one from eternal hell is still an act of mercy relative to what sinners deserve.
You can see a distinction in the two hadith that are usually quoted.
تَغْلِبُ (taghlibu) = prevails over / overcomes
سَبَقَتْ (sabaqat) = preceded / has gone before
This is exactly why the lone narrator’s reports are not used to produce certainty in matters of creed. However, if we were to offer an interpretation and one interpretation is as good as any other, it would be this. That mercy preceded wrath in the form of sending prophets, scriptures, and warnings. Whoever rejects that mercy after it has come deserves the wrath.
Much of what is addressed here are old discussions that were discussed back and forth at a forum here:
“And they say, “Never will the Fire touch us, except for a few days.” Say, “Have you taken a covenant with Allah? For Allah will never break His covenant. Or do you say about Allah that which you do not know?” Yes, whoever earns evil and his sin has encompassed him – those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally.” (Qur’an 2:80-81)
And this alone should be sufficient.
Why would this be true only for Jews and not for every believer? On what consistent basis is this claim made?
“While the wicked will be in Hell. They will roast on the Day of Judgment. And they will never be absent from it.” (Qur’an 82: 14-16)
This verse above is also clear. It says that theywill never be absent from it. Not that they will be there forever and one day maybe not. Never. It is as clear as it may get.
“And when the appointed Day comes, no one shall even dare to speak except by the leave of Allah. Then some will be declared wretched, others blessed. As for the wretched, they shall be in the Fire, and in it they shall sigh and groan. They shall abide in it as long as the heavens and the earth endure, unless your Lord may will otherwise. Surely your Lord does whatsoever He wills. And as for those who are blessed, they shall abide in the Garden as long as the heavens and the earth endure, unless your Lord may will otherwise. They shall enjoy an unceasing gift.” (Qur’an 11:105-109)
So the main point of one of the commenters is as follows:
Notice God says “…your Lord carries out whatever He wills…” after the description of potential release from Hell, as if to support this possibility. Yet, after the same statement made in reference to Heaven, God says “…an unceasing gift”. He doesn’t say “…whatever He wills”, which would support the statement that Heaven will end, but rather “unceasing gift” supports the continuation of Heaven.
Point 1.
Nothing happens except by the will of Allah who has full and total control over all things.
“As for the Righteous, they will be in bliss; And the Wicked – they will be in the Fire, Which they will enter on the Day of Judgment, And they will not be able to keep away therefrom. And what will explain to you what the Day of Judgment is? Again, what will explain to you what the Day of Judgment is? (It will be) the Day when no soul shall have power (to do) aught for another: For the command, that Day, will be (wholly) with Allah.” (Qur’an 82:13-19)
They shall abide in (hellfire) it as long as the heavens and the earth endure, unless your Lord may will otherwise.
they shall abide in the Garden as long as the heavens and the earth endure, unless your Lord may will otherwise.
These people are clearly overlooking the eternality of the garden and hell based upon the eternality of the new heaven and earth itself.
“On the day when the earth is changed into another earth, as well as the heavens, and they emerged before Allah, the One, the Subduer.” (Qur’an 14:48)
Now let us do a thought experiment. What would be the reason or purpose for someone to leave paradise? Is there any text suggesting that a person would be expelled from or leave paradise after entering it?
“Then We said, “O Adam, you and your wife, both dwell in the Garden and eat to your hearts’ content where from you will, but do not go near this tree otherwise you shall become transgressors” After a time Satan tempted them with that tree to disobey Our Command and brought them out of the state they were in, and We decreed, “Now, go down all of you from here; you are enemies of one another. Henceforth you shall dwell and provide for yourselves on the Earth for a specified period.” At that time Adam learnt appropriate words from his Lord and repented, and his Lord accepted his repentance, for He is very Relenting and very Merciful.” (Quran 2:35-37)
Point 3.
The proponents of the idea that people will leave hell seem fixated on the the following endings:
After mentioning hellfire : Surely your Lord does whatsoever He wills.
After mentioning paradise, they shall enjoy an unceasing gift.
Yet, they seem to forget that both statements are preceded by: unless your Lord May will otherwise.
They wish to only focus on ‘They shall enjoy an unceasing gift’ and ignore that the text is preceded by ‘unless your Lord May will otherwise’ as well as ‘as long as the heavens and earth pass’.
For example, in the English language one may say:
Except as I will, you children may have all the chocolates on the table.
Or
You children may have all the chocolates on the table, except as I will.
Both sentence structures indicate that the children may enjoy as long as I will.
Point 4.
Inconsistent methodology.
So, using their logic, and if one was to be consistent, we would need to understand under what circumstances would those believers who go to heaven not enjoy heaven any longer? In the same vein, those who are sent to hellfire under what circumstances would they leave?
Allah (swt) could have removed the “unless your Lord may will otherwise” statement. That would have given the proponents the same weight as that verse. Yet, they would still need to contend with the numerous verses in the Qur’an in which Allah (swt) clearly indicated his will regarding those in hellfire.
“While the wicked will be in Hell. They will roast on the Day of Judgment. And they will never be absent from it.” (Qur’an 82: 14-16)
Point 5.
Lastly, on that text above. It would not indicate who would leave the hell fire.
Remember, there is a belief among Sunni Muslims that believers can enter the hellfire and then be taken out.
They cannot bring a single verse of the Qur’an to substantiate this. So if we are to use the logic of those who believe that hellfire is not eternal for its inhabitants (contrary to what Allah clearly says), it would mean that the polytheist, mushrik, anyone will eventually leave hell.
For us the matter is clear, crystal clear.
The hellfire is eternal for who ever enters it.
Our creed is taken from clear verses and not verses subject to multiple interpretations.
Objections are based upon interpretations or emotive in nature.
There is not a single verse anywhere in the Qur’an that believers (mumin) enter the hellfire.
There is not a single verse anywhere in the Qur’an that the ungrateful (kafir) enter heaven.
The Qur’an has to be in harmony with all its verses.
The next text that was discussed in that forum actually works against them.
“To those who reject Our Signs and treat them with arrogance, no opening will there be of the gates of Heaven, nor will they enter the Garden, until the camel can pass through the eye of the needle: such is Our reward for those in sin.” (Qur’an 7:40)
In the Tafsir attributed to Ibn Abbas (ra) Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs it says:
(Lo! they who deny Our revelations) Muhammed (pbuh) and the Qur’an (and scorn them) scorn believing in them, (for them the gates of Heaven will not be opened) to receive their works or souls (nor will they enter the Garden until the camel goes through the needle’s eye) they will not enter Paradise just as a camel cannot pass through the eye of a needle; it is also said that this means: they will not enter Paradise until a rope goes through a needle’s eye. (Thus do We requite the guilty) the idolaters.”
Even our teacher, Shaykh Hilal Al Wardi (hafidulah), favours the understanding of rope instead of camel.
Even then, as the Shaykh says, it means a big rope and not the thin thread that easily passes through the eye of the needle. The big rope is impossible.
Let us follow through logically.
ALL SUNNI Muslims believe that, at the very least, the unbelievers will go to hellfire. So, if the above verse is to be understood as something possible, a rope that can go through the eye of a needle, then no one will go to hellfire at all!
Now we know that this verse is clear. Allah (swt) has made it clear when he states: “Surely your Lord does whatsoever He wills.” That Allah (swt) has not willed for these people anything other than for them to remain in hellfire.
We know that Allah’s (swt) promise and statements are true.
“But the ones who believe and do righteous deeds – We will admit them to gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. It is the promise of Allah , which is truth, and who is more truthful than Allah in statement.” (Qur’an 4:122)
The only other possible straw for these people to clutch is the evil and heinous position that Allah (swt) can lie. So then when Allah (swt) says:
“While the wicked will be in Hell. They will roast on the Day of Judgment. And they will never be absent from it.” (Qur’an 82: 14-16)
or
“To those who reject Our Signs and treat them with arrogance, no opening will there be of the gates of Heaven, nor will they enter the Garden, until the camel can pass through the eye of the needle: such is Our reward for those in sin.” (Qur’an 7:40)
We have refuted that vile and godless position here:
“And of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil deeds until death faces one of them and he says: “Now I repent;” nor of those who die while they are ungrateful (kuffarun). For them, We have prepared a painful torment.” (Qur’an 4:18)
“IF (but) eschew the evilest of the things which you are forbidden to do, We shall expel out of (Saiyiatikum) YOU ALL THE EVIL IN YOU, and admit you to a gate of great honor.” –(Qur’an 4:31)
﷽
We can establish two quick points from the very beginning.
1. There is not a verse in the entirety of the Qur’an that gives a single example of a believer (mumin) entering hellfire.
2. There is not a verse in the entirety of the Qur’an that gives a single example of a kafir (ingrate) entering paradise.
“O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah with the care which is due to Him, and do not die unless you are Muslims.” (Qur’an 3:102)
“And return in repentance to your Lord and submit to Him before the punishment comes upon you; then you will not be helped.” (Qur’an 39:54)
What should be important for us it is not important if our school is right or wrong on the matter.
What is important for us is that we are following the clear evidence as given by the Qur’an and the agreed-upon traditions of the Blessed Messenger (saw)- Al-Sunnah.
The only reason the title is put as such is to make a distinction between what we believe to be the truth of the matter. Other schools have their reasons and justifications.
It is important to understand how we understand the word ‘Muslim’ and the word ‘kufr’ and what they mean based on the agreed-upon sources.
There are states or conditions that we are born into that we can lose and those states or conditions that we cannot lose. For example, if you are born a man or a woman for the rest of your life you will be a man or a woman. (though in this day and age some may even scoff at this reasoning!)
There is one’s ethnic group to which you belong that you are born with. If one is born an Arab they will die as an Arab.
So your gender, your ethnicity you are born as such and die as such.
Now a status can change. You could go from being single to married. You could go from being married to single. You could begin a career as a lawyer and die as a farmer.
So this is why it is important to understand the word ‘Muslim’ as-a state of being.
You can be Muslim and you can lose your faith in Islam. One of the most obvious examples of this without resorting to proof text is that if a Muslim chooses to leave Islam for another religion or no religion at all. This person has gone out of the Milla of Islam.
“Say, My Lord has guided me to a straight path, and to an upright religion, the religion (millata) of Abraham the upright, who was not of those who associate partners with Allah. Say. Surely my prayer and my sacrifice and my life and my death are (all) for Allah, the Lord of the worlds; No associate has He, and this am I commanded, and I am the first of those who submit (l-muslimina)” (Qur’an 6:161-163)
“And those who disbelieved said to their messengers: We will most certainly drive you forth from our land, or else you shall come back into our religion (millatina). So their Lord revealed to them: Most certainly We will destroy the unjust.” (Qur’an 14:13)
“Lo! those who believe, then disbelieve and then (again) believe, then disbelieve, and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them, nor will He guide them on the way. Give tidings to the hypocrites that for them there is a painful punishment.” (Qur’an 4:137-138)
These verses are very clear that one can leave the Milla of Islam and that one can be upon faith and than kufr and than return to faith and then return back to kufr and than continue on in their kufr.
You want to make sure that when you die you die upon the cycle of iman (belief). Allah (swt) has mentioned several times that we are not to die except in a state of Islam. We should die while upon belief and in a state of surrender, submission, to die as Muslims. Amin for all of us!
“And you do not take revenge on us except because we have believed in the communications of our Lord when they came to us! Our Lord: Pour out upon us patience and cause us to die insubmission (muslimina) ” (Qur’an 7:126)
“And the same did Ibrahim enjoin on his sons and (so did) Yaqoub. O, my sons! surely Allah has chosen for you (this) faith, therefore die not unless you are Muslims (muslimuna). (Qur’an 2:132)
“O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah with the care which is due to Him, and do not die unless you are Muslims.” (Qur’an 3:102)
So there are two points to be taken from the above text
We want to die in a state of surrender in a state of submission. For these commands to be there means it is possible for one not to die in a state of surrender and submission. We seek protection with Allah (swt) from that-for all of us!
We want to die while having belief/ faith in our hearts. We make supplication that this happens for all of us!
Notice that one of the three verses quoted above admonishes the following:
“Pour out upon us patience.” – In other words, grant us patience in doing what we need to do. & “be careful of (your duty to) Allah with the care which is due to Him.”
So please understand that the word Muslim means action. It is more an adjective that describes a state of being rather than a noun -regardless of anything one says or does.
Muslims are not like our gender or ethnicity. Being in a state of Islam is not something that stays with us no matter what we do. So it is something we must be careful to guard.
Based upon the Qur’an and Sunnah have two types of kafir.
All mushriks (those who associate partners with Allah) are kafir.
However, not all kafir are mushriks.
An example of the first point. Mushrik are kafirs.
“Certainly they are ungrateful (KAFARA)who say: Surely, Allah– He is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then could control anything as against Allah when He wished to destroy the Messiah son of Mary and his mother and all those on the earth? And Allah’s is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them; He creates what He pleases; and Allah has power over all things,” (Qur’an 5:17)
An example of the second point. Not all kafirs are Mushriks.
” And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the disbelievers (l-kāfirūna).” (Qur’an 5:44)
While the immediate context is a reference to the Jews, it would be a strange thing to say that Jews who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are kafir while Muslims get a free pass.
“Now, surely, sincere obedience is due to Allah (alone) and as for those who take awliyaa besides Him, saying, We do not serve them save that they may make us nearer to Allah, surely Allah will judge between them in that in which they differ; surely Allah does not guide him aright who is a liar, ungrateful(kaffarun) (Qur’an 39:3)
So what or how do we understand the word kufr?
Some want to make the word kufr as that which brings one out of Islam. Often you may see in their books and translations of the Qur’an that the various iterations of the word kufr or kafir will be translated into English as: ‘infidel’ or ‘disbeliever’ or ‘nonbeliever’ or ‘unbeliever’.
However, we want to look at how Allah (swt) the lord of all the worlds uses the word and its different forms throughout the revelation that He (swt) has given to us.
“Know that this world’s life is a sport and play and gaiety and boasting among yourselves, and a vying in the multiplication of wealth and children, like the rain, whose causing the vegetation to grow, pleases the tillers (al-kuffara), then it withers away so that you will see it become yellow, then it becomes dried up and broken down, and in the hereafter is a severe chastisement and (also) forgiveness from Allah and (His) pleasure, and this world’s life is naught but means of deception.” (Qur’an 57:20)
Maa sha Allah! This verse is very powerful. It also has a double meaning on the word kuffar. You can see that people in this life are all about hedonism and narcissism, boasting, and competition. Yet these people are ungrateful. They are compared to tillers who cover the earth. They are happy with their efforts.
Yet, as Allah (swt) mentions that the produce itself becomes nothing. That the life of this world is but means of deception. The produce becomes nothing, we see our youth give way to the challenges of old age. Even the wealth and children disperse. How many families fight over wealth and inheritance? How many children, in turn, are ungrateful to their parents for the sacrifices they made to give them a better lifestyle?
So much can be said about this amazing verse! Subhan’Allah.
“And when your Lord made it known: If you are grateful (shakartum), I would certainly give to you more, and if you are ungrateful (kafartum) , then My torment will be severe.“ (Qur’an 14:7)
So here Allah (swt) contrasted gratefulness with kafar (ungrateful). He also again warned us that His ‘torment will be severe‘ for those who are ungrateful. Note in the above verse one is either grateful or ungrateful. There is no in between. It is akin to a light switch what is the position between on/off?
“How is it you are ungrateful (takfurūna) to Allah? You had been lifeless, then, He gave you life. again, He will cause you to die. Again, He will give you life. And, again, you are returned to Him.” (Qur’an 2:28)
“So when they ride in the ships they call upon Allah, being sincerely obedient to Him, but when He brings them safely to the land, lo! they associate others (yush’rikūna) with Him; being ungrateful (liyakfuru) for what We gave them. So let them take joy for soon they will know!” (Qur’an 29:65-66)
So with all these verses in mind, it should be known that in the Ibadi school we understand Kufr as a denial of truth and ingratitude-either by one’s actions or inaction.
So the second type as mentioned above is kufr ni’mah. So this kufr-ni’mah is when any of us as Muslims commit major sins -persist in those sins and do not repent.
So those Muslims are kafir ni’mah. Ungrateful to Allah (swt) for the overwhelming and manifest blessings that He (swt) has given to them. They show this by their actions or inaction.
Our view is that any Muslim who does this and does not repent before death reaches/him or her will be in eternal hellfire.
So to be clear this is our position. In this life, there are three groups.
There are the Mushrik -those who are outside of Islam. Kufr Ash-Shirk
There are the Mumin (those are the believers) -They are part of the millat of Islam.
There are those who are kafir ni’mah (nifaq).- They are part of the millat of Islam. They share the beliefs of the Muslims. The share with those outside of Islam in kufr.
The one in kafir ni’mah he/she shares with the Mushrik in kufr -not of associating partners with Allah(swt) but in covering up the truth and/or being ungrateful to Allah(swt).
The one in kafir ni’mah he/she shares with the Muslims, thee beliefs of Islam. They are part of the Millat of Islam. Yet, they are Muslim by their tongues and the affirmation of the people. But if they are truly people of wara, and taqwa and emaan they will rush to ask forgiveness from their Lord.
Some people may be familiar with the term:
“The difference between us and the Kharijis is that they oppose us only in that they judge of every punishable act of kufr entailing expulsion from the millah.”-Shaykh Ahmed b. Hamad al-Khalili
As regards the afterlife we believe there are two types of categories and two abodes and the inhabitants of one do not enter the abode of the other.
The two categories are:
One is a destination for the kufar
One is a destination for the mumin.
The two destinations are:
The paradise and the believers do not come out from it. There is no verse in the Qur’an that paradise is for the kafir.
The hellfire and no one comes out from it. There is no verse in the Qur’an that hellfire is for the mumin.
The following three ahadith are something to ponder.
Jabir ibn ‘Abd-Allah reported: The Prophet, (saw) said, “Verily between a man and shirk and kufr there stands his neglect of the prayer.”
“I heard the Messenger of Allah ( saw) ‘The covenant that distinguishes between us and them is the prayer, and whoever neglects it has disbelieved (become a kafir).’”
Abdullah bin Buraidah narrated that his father said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: The covenant that distinguishes between us and them is the prayer; so whoever neglects it, has become a kafir (committed kufr).”
When a person willfully, abandons the prayer he/she/ become a kafir.
They are in a state of Kufr.
The type of kufr is called: “kufr ni’mah” ungratefulness to Allah (swt), for his many blessings by covering or hiding the reality of what Allah (swt) has commanded and prohibited and enjoined upon us.
Muslims who do major sins and persist in this without tauba are in a state of “kufr ni’mah” -they are still part of the Milla of Islam, their children inherit from them. However, if these people die in such a state, without making repentance the position of the Qur’an is clear. That person will go to hell fire-where they will neither reprieve nor escape.
“And of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil deeds until death faces one of them and he says: “Now I repent;” nor of those who die while they are ungrateful (kuffarun). For them, We have prepared a painful torment.” (Qur’an 4:18)
This verse is very clear.
Repentance is no use who continue to do evil deeds upon until death faces them (which could be at any moment) mind you. So it is risky to delay repentance and also shows a type of satisfaction with the sin.
Those who die while they are in a state of ungratefulness (kuffarun).
A painful punishment is prepared for such.
May Allah (swt) protect you and me and all of us!
“Surely as for those whom the angels cause to die while they are unjust to their souls, they shall say: In what state were you? They shall say: We were weak in the earth. They shall say: Was not Allah’s earth spacious so that you should have migrated therein? So those it is whose abode is hell, and it is an evil destination.” (Qur’an 4:99)
“The repentance accepted by Allah is only for those who do wrong in ignorance or carelessness and then repent soon after. It is those to whom Allah will turn in forgiveness, and Allah is ever Knowing and Wise..” (Qur’an 4:17)
So notice that it says even for people who do sins out of ignorance or carelessness that they should repent “soon after” How much more for those who do the major evil sins?
Now, this doesn’t mean if you did something out of ignorance or carelessness that you will be punished. Allah (swt) is merciful and does not want to punish someone for carelessness or slight acts of negligence.
What this verse is stating is that when it now becomes clear to you that what you were doing out of ignorance or carelessness is now made clear that you should repent from it immediately.
“IF (but) eschew the evilest of the things which you are forbidden to do, We shall expel out of (Saiyiatikum) YOU ALL THE EVIL IN YOU, and admit you to a gate of great honor.” -(Qur’an 4:31)
This verse is conditional. If we do our level best to avoid the major sins than Allah (swt) will remove from us the lesser sins. Allah (swt) forgives sins because He is al-ʿAfūw & al-Ghafūr
For more on the above verse please read our article here:
“It is right to hope that Allah will pardon them. For Allah is The one who Effaces, The Ever Forgiving..” (Qur’an 4:99)
Even with this in mind, we should do our level best to avoid small sins. We should never despair of the Mercy of Allah (swt) nor should we take for granted the Mercy of Allah (swt). That is the point is that by taking for granted the Mercy of Allah (swt) is in and of itself ingratitude.
As regards the majority of Muslims supposedly not praying or keeping their duty to Allah (swt) that is not your problem nor mine. We love them and hope they quickly amend their ways. Our duty is to save ourselves and our family from the fire whose fuel is men and jinn, whose fuel is men and stones.
So what does taubah mean?
It means to return or to turn.
Return or turn to whom?
Why would you need to return or turn if you are already in a state of surrender?
The matter of whether or not hell is eternal.
This is another reason why I feel the Muslim community is in the state that it is in. Think about it. The majority Muslim position is telling everyone that:
“Don’t worry Allah will put you in hell for a while, and then you will come out of it.” “Don’t worry you will only be in hell for 257 million years and then you can come out of it!“
May Allah (swt) protect us from perverse doctrines!
As if hell were a light matter! Not only that but they teach that hellfire is not eternal for the Muslim who commits major sins and does not repent!
Now let me ask you, dear readers. What actually is a Muslim?
What do you think should be the case for the Muslim who says:
“I know killing people is wrong but I’ll do it anyway.” “I know drinking alcohol is forbidden, and extramarital affairs are wrong but I’ll do them anyway”
“O you who have believed, fear Allah and give up what remains of interest if you should be believers. And if you do not, then be informed of war against you from Allah and His Messenger. But if you repent, you may have your principal – thus you do no wrong, nor are you wronged.” (Qur’an 2:278-279)
Can you imagine the condition of such a person? A person who says:
“I know that usury is forbidden, and I am in a state of war with Allah and His Messenger and I know that it is wrong, but I will do it anyway.” ?!?
So is simple lip service and acknowledging that it’s a sin and yet continuing to revel in it the hallmark of a Muslim? What is this based on?
Then you have to wonder about the moral decay in the Muslim community. Even though we could die at any moment, the personal reasons, “I can do this and Allah (swt) will just forgive me. Worst-case scenario I’ll go to hell for a while be purified and then released into heaven.” Authubillah min dhalik!
But a Muslim who neglect the prayers from simple laziness or no desire, you have to ask yourself what actually is a Muslim?
What is so hard about doing taubah?
Look at all the places it is mentioned in the Qur’an.
If you think about the major sins they are not things that are altogether to difficult to avoid.
Like do you personally find it difficult not to kill people?
Do you have some overwhelming desire to worship idols and associate partners with Allah (swt)?
Do you feel it’s absolutely necessary to cheat on your husband/wife when divorce is open to you?
The prayer takes discipline, but at the end of the day, it’s roughly 5 minutes (25 minutes) out of a 24 hour period.
You can perform it sitting down, lying on your side, you can combine prayers when traveling, shorten it during the conflict, and so forth.
Look at this hadith.
On the authority of Anas (ra), who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: Allah the Almighty said: O son of Adam, so long as you call upon Me and ask Me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you, O Son of Adam were you to come to Me with sins nearly as great as the Earth and were you then to face Me, ascribing no partner to Me, I would bring you forgiveness nearly as great as it.”
“He said: “O my people! why do you seek to hasten on the evil before the good? Why do you not ask forgiveness of Allah so that you may be dealt with mercifully? (Qur’an 27:46)
You really have to be a person actively fleeing from the mercy of Allah, an individual actively fleeing from Allah’s forgiveness and mercy to end up in hell. You actively have to want to participate in that end. You do so by continuing to disobey Allah (swt) and not seeking forgiveness, and not wanting transformation in your life. May Allah suffice us!
“The day when neither wealth nor sons shall profit except for him who comes to Allah with a pure heart.” (Qur’an 26:88-89)
“Nay! But on their hearts is the Ran (covering of sins and evil deeds) which they used to earn.’” (Qur’an 83:14)
Can a heart that is filled with ingratitude and hypocrisy be said to be a pure heart?
Look at what the great Shaykh and teacher of spirituality, Imam Al Ghazali has quoted:
“The Messenger of Allah “Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him,” said: “There are four kinds of hearts: a heart which is stripped clean in which a lamp shines and this is the believer’s heart; a heart which is black and upside down, and it is the unbeliever’s heart; a hardened heart bound n its sheath of evil, and it is the heart of the hypocrite; and a broad heart in which there is both belief and hypocrisy. Its belief is like green herbage which pure water causes to abound, and its hypocrisy is like an ulcer which purulent matter and pus cause to spread. This heart is judged to belong to whichever of the two prevails over the other.” This heart is judged to belong to whichever of the two prevails over the other.”
Indeed, the hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire – and never will you find for them a helper – Except for those who repent, correct themselves, hold fast to Allah, and are sincere in their religion for Allah, for those will be with the believers. And Allah is going to give the believers a great reward. Why should Allah punish you if you are grateful and believe? And ever is Allah Appreciative and Knowing.” (Qur’an 4:145-147)
“Allah does not charge a soul except with that within its capacity. It will have the consequence of what good it has gained, and it will bear the consequence of what evil it has earned. “Our Lord, do not impose blame upon us if we have forgotten or erred. Our Lord, and lay not upon us a burden like that which You laid upon those before us. Our Lord, and burden us not with that which we have no ability to bear. And pardon us, and forgive us, and have mercy upon us. You are our protector, so give us victory over the ungrateful (l-kafirina) people.” (Qur’an 2:286)
“O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah with the care which is due to Him, and do not die unless you are Muslims.” (Qur’an 3:102)
“And return [in repentance] to your Lord and submit to Him before the punishment comes upon you; then you will not be helped.” (Qur’an 39:54)
Oh Muslims die in a state of surrender to Allah (swt) and not in a state of rebellion to Allah (swt)
There is not a verse in the entirety of the Qur’an that gives a single example of a kafir (ingrate) entering paradise.
One final note. Anyone who in a state of kufr will go to hell. Hell is not for the mumin.
So how to avoid this fate?
Avoid major sins. If you find that you fall short, repent immediately! Return to Allah (swt).
Allah is our success!
You may also be interested in the following articles:
“As for those who struggle in Our cause, We will surely guide them along Our Ways. And Allah is certainly with the good-doers.” (Qur’an 29:69)
﷽
One of the searchers for truth among the Shi’i has had some questions to the Ibadi in regard to the matters of Siffin and Nahrawan.
Question: Why did the people who differed with Ali over the arbitration not continue fighting if Ali had stopped fighting?
Answer: It is not permissible to continue the fighting while they are without an imam, for fear that they will die a death of ignorance. They must be under the banner of an Imam. So, a new imam should have been appointed. It is not reasonable to appoint an imam while they are at war. They must rest a little and agree on a specific person away from the battle front.
The people were angry with him because the consensus of the nation is that he (Ali) is the legitimate caliph and those who rebelled against him are rebels according to the text of the Qur’an and must be fought. But his pledge of allegiance was broken, so how could Imam Ali be a caliph when he submitted to the rule and accepted the two arbitrations, and how could they pledge allegiance to him as caliph when he was not of their opinion and did not join them?
Question: Why didn’t the people of Nahrawan after electing Abdullah ibn Wahb Al-Rasibi press the attack against Mu’awiya and his forces?
Answer: How do we know if the people of Nahrawan wanted to fight Mu’awiya?
Did Ali give them a chance to do as such? He surprised them with his army and caused their deaths through the treachery of al-Ash’ath himself, whom had forced (Ali) into arbitration. Likewise, the people of Nahrawan are innocent because they were never followers of Mu’awiya, otherwise they would not have refused to pledge allegiance to Mu’awiya and they were fought against the Umayyad state. This is well known from history.
You may also be interested in reading the following:
“Certainly will the believers have succeeded “ (Qur’an 23:1)
﷽
Faith is not based on inheritance. We don’t inherit it from a family. You get it through conviction. Through understanding. Through contemplation. You can get rituals from your parents, from your family. However, faith is not an inheritance.
What are the signs that you have faith?
We do not have a device that can measure the faith of others. We do not have the right to measure the faith of others. We do not have a device where we can measure the faith of others. You are a level 10 and your faith is at level 2. No! Faith is in the chest (concealed).
“So whoever Allah wants to guide – He expands his breast to [contain] Islam; and whoever He wants to misguide – He makes his breast tight and constricted as though he were climbing into the sky. Thus does Allah place defilement upon those who do not believe.”(Qur’an 6:125)
However, what are some of the manifest signs that are the signs of faith?
Allah (swt) himself has given each of us a way to check ourselves. Allah (swt) himself has given a unit of measure.
Allah (swt) gave us Qur’an 23:1-9 as a means of self assessment.
Qur’an (23:1-9) The self measurement test.
Certainly will the believers have succeeded:
“They who are during their prayer humbly submissive.”
Question: Are we humbly submissive during our prayers or is it a ritual you seek to get done and over with?
“And they who turn away from ill speech.”
Question: Do we turn away from ill speech? Or do we tolerate it, and indulge in it ourselves?
“And they who are observant of zakah.”
Question: Have we payed our Zakat Fitri and our Zakat Harta? Have we given what is due to others?
“And they who guard their private parts Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed.”
Question: Do we guard our private parts? Do we act modestly with our speech our eyes and our tongues? Are we involved in looking at what we should not be looking at?
“But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors.”
Question: If we do beyond what Allah (swt) has enjoined will we not be among the transgressors?
“And those who are to their trusts and their promises attentive.”
Question: Are we keeping our promises? Are we keeping to our commitments?
“And they who carefully maintain their prayers.”
Question: Are we being vigilant about our prayers? Are we constantly missing prayers or not even praying at all? Are we aware of what we need to do to perform our prayers correctly?
This check list is not for us to measure others. This is a self-check list that Allah (swt) has given to each of us to measure ourselves.
“Indeed, Allah only accepts from the righteous [who fear Him].” (Quran 5:27)
﷽
His Eminence, Shaykh Masoud Al Miqbali (h) informs us about a most dangerous matter. It is a false understanding that it is widespread and pervasive among the Muslims today!
We have translated his warning to us below.
“Among the misconceptions that have come to us is that someone tells you, “Do good deeds and bad deeds, and Allah will hold you accountable for this and for that.” But what is more common is the idea that “Allah willing, if your good deeds are many, the bad deeds will not harm you.” This concept is completely incorrect, absolutely false.”
“Take, for example, the narration in Sahih al-Bukhari about one of the Companions, nicknamed the “drunken donkey,” who used to drink wine. They flogged him once, twice, and three times. One of the Companions became very angry with him and said something bad about him. The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied to that person, saying: “Do not say that. For indeed, this drunkard, this addict to wine, loves Allah and His Messenger.”
“If an alcoholic hears this hadith, what would he say? Once, an alcoholic heard people speaking on a ‘Mawlid’ occasion—they were using symbolisms, like Sufi poets. He said: “Only a hero drinks wine.” And this is a person who is immersed in wine 24 hours a day, getting drunk. He said into the microphone: “Only a hero drinks wine.”
“He hears the religious preacher say, “Wine is forbidden, wine is forbidden.” Then he hears what the ‘Mawlid’ speaker says: “Only a hero drinks wine.” They might mean spiritual wine—the wine of remembrance and love of Allah. But he… they raise their banners, and I raise the banner of Najd. Every eye weeps over what grieves it.”
“This is the essence of “La ilaha illa Allah” (There is no god but Allah). It does not permit any person, no matter how high-ranking, even if he were Adam (peace be upon him), to deviate from its requirements. The presence of a sin that a person persists in blocks the acceptance of all his good deeds, even if he says “La ilaha illa Allah.“
“Take the son of Adam (Cain and Abel). The one whose offering was not accepted from him was not a disbeliever, nor was he a monotheist? He was a monotheist, not a disbeliever. Evidence for this is that he offered a sacrifice to Allah. If he had been a polytheist, he would not have drawn near to Allah. If he had been an atheist, he would not have drawn near to Allah. His drawing near to Allah indicates that he believed and affirmed Allah’s existence. So, an offering was presented. One was accepted from one and not accepted from the other. So, the one from whom it was not accepted—he has a problem. Monotheism alone is not sufficient for his deeds to be accepted. It is not enough. He affirms “La ilaha illa Allah.” Where is the flaw? What is the problem? What prevented and barred the acceptance of his deed?
Allah says: “Indeed, Allah only accepts from the righteous [who fear Him].”(Quran 5:27)
“Acceptance is for those who remain within the framework of “La ilaha illa Allah” and do not step outside it. It is for those who make “La ilaha illa Allah” a way of life, not just a phrase muttered on the lips or believed in the heart, then sometimes they act according to its requirements and sometimes they step outside it. “La ilaha illa Allah” entails commitment, belief, application, adherence, and steadfastness upon it.”
“Allah says to His Prophet (peace be upon him): “So be steadfast as you are commanded.” (Quran 11:112)
He says: “So be steadfast towards Him and seek His forgiveness… Indeed, those who have said, ‘Our Lord is Allah,’ and then remained steadfast – no fear will be upon them, nor will they grieve.” (Quran 46:13)
“One cannot take part of the religion and leave part of it.”
“So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part? Then what is the recompense for those who do that among you except disgrace in worldly life; and on the Day of Resurrection they will be sent back to the severest of punishment.” (Quran 2:85)
Allah did not say, “We will reward you for your faith in what you believed in and punish you for your disbelief in what you disbelieved in.” He made that faith as if it were nothing.”
“So, a person must not dare to transgress any of Allah’s boundaries under the pretext that “the statement ‘La ilaha illa Allah’ will intercede for me.”
Do you know about whom the following verse was revealed?
The verse: “O you who have believed, do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet or be loud to him in speech like the loudness of some of you to others, lest your deeds become worthless while you perceive not.” (Quran 49:2)
About whom was this verse revealed? It was revealed about Abu Bakr and Umar, as narrated by Al-Bukhari.”
Narrated Ibn Abi Mulaika:
The two righteous persons were about to be ruined. They were Abu Bakr and `Umar who raised their voices in the presence of the Prophet (ﷺ) when a mission from Bani Tamim came to him. One of the two recommended Al-Aqra’ bin Habeas, the brother of Bani Mujashi (to be their governor) while the other recommended somebody else. (Nafi`, the sub-narrator said, I do not remember his name). Abu Bakr said to `Umar, “You wanted nothing but to oppose me!” `Umar said, “I did not intend to oppose you.” Their voices grew loud in that argument, so Allah revealed: ‘O you who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet.’ (49.2) Ibn Az-Zubair said, “Since the revelation of this Verse, `Umar used to speak in such a low tone that the Prophet (ﷺ) had to ask him to repeat his statements.” But Ibn Az-Zubair did not mention the same about his (maternal) grandfather (i.e. Abu Bakr).
(O you who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet,) This contains another kind of favorable behavior. Allah the Exalted is teaching the believers that they should not raise their voices above the voice of the Prophet. It was stated that this Ayah was revealed about Abu Bakr and `Umar. Al-Bukhari recorded that Ibn Abi Mulaykah said, “The two righteous ones, Abu Bakr and `Umar, almost earned destruction when they raised their voices before the Prophet who was receiving the delegation of Bani Tamim. One of them recommended Al-Aqra` bin Habis the member of the Banu Mujashi` while the other recommended another man. Nafi` (a subnarrator) said: “I don’t remember his name.” Abu Bakr said to `Umar, `You only wanted to contradict me,’ while `Umar said, `I did not intend to contradict you.’ Their voices then became loud, thereupon Allah the Exalted sent down this Ayah,يأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ لاَ تَرْفَعُواْ أَصْوَتَكُمْ فَوْقَ صَوْتِ النَّبِىِّ وَلاَ تَجْهَرُواْ لَهُ بِالْقَوْلِ كَجَهْرِ بَعْضِكُمْ لِبَعْضٍ أَن تَحْبَطَ أَعْمَـلُكُمْ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ تَشْعُرُونَ(O you who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak aloud to him in talk as you speak aloud to one another, lest your deeds should be thwarted while you perceive not.)’‘ `Abdullah bin Az-Zubayr said, “After that, `Umar’s voice was so low that the Messenger of Allah had to ask him to repeat what he said so that he could understand what he was saying to him.” `Abdullah bin Az-Zubayr did not mention the same regarding his father, Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him. Muslim did not collect this Hadith. In another narration collected by Al-Bukhari, he said that a delegation from the tribe of Banu Tamim came to the Prophet and that Abu Bakr recommended Al-Qa`qa` bin Ma`bad to be appointed as their leader, while `Umar recommended Al-Aqra` bin Habis. Muslim did not collect this narration.
“How will you comprehend what the steep ascent is? It is freeing a slave (raqabatin -a neck) or giving of food at the time of famine to an orphan or near of kin or some needy person in distress.” (Qur’an 90:12-16)
“It is not righteousness that you turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves (l-riqābi) freeing the necks -slaves); to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah-fearing.” (Qur’an 2:177)
“When it is said to them, “Follow what Allah has revealed,” they reply, “No! We follow what we found our forefathers practicing.” (Qur’an 2:170)
﷽
This topic is not a difficult one to address. Especially when we realize some very basic things about human beings and human nature.
Humans have engaged in wars, slavery, marriage, divorce, and trade before the coming of the final revelation, the Qur’an.
The Qur’an comes to address the reality of what was happening in society. It addresses the situation on the ground. The Qur’an did not come to bring slavery but rather to address it. When Allah addresses slavery, He is giving rules to manage an existing situation, not expressing His endorsement of it.
The issue of Raqab (Slave) & Milk Al Yamin (Those whom your right hand possess) is through one means and one means only. That is via the context of war.
Outside the context of war, there is not a single verse in the Qur’an that calls for holding anyone as captive.
The other point that one will not fail to notice is that Raqab (slave) in the Qur’an is never in the context of the Muslims having them. Rather, it is in the context of the disbelievers having them and Muslims are encouraged to free them from the disbelievers.
Raqaba (Those whose necks are bound =under non Muslims) We should clarify that this also does mean Muslims who had slaves prior to embracing Islam. Ma-Malakat Aymanukum (Those whom your right-hand posses /those whom you are your oath of protection/You are a custodian over them)
The decision on what to do after victory over one’s opponent.
This decision affects men, women and children. This decision would be delegated to the commander who is able to best access the situation.
The commander can to decide to:
Kill them all (except women and children), as in the case of Bani Qurayzah, because the Blessed Prophet (saw) explicitly forbade the killing of women and children.*
They could ransom them, as in the case of the battle of Badr, or exchange them for Muslim prisoners.
Or they can take them as Ma-Malakat Aymanukum.
It really depends on the context and the assessment of the commander.
*It is narrated by Ibn ‘Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (saw) forbade the killing of women and children.
The first call is not to bring these people in as Ma-Malakat Aymanukum. The following verse demonstrates this:
“So, when you encounter those who disbelieve, then (aim at) smiting the necks, until when you have broken their strength thoroughly, then establish the covenant (or terms). Then choose (to release them) either (as) a favour (shown to them,), or (after receiving) ransom, until the war is over. That (is Our command.) If Allah willed, He would have (Himself) subjected them to retribution, but (Allah ordered you to fight,) so that He may test some of you through some others. And those who are killed in Allah’s way, He will never let their deeds go to waste.” (Qur’an 47:4)
The Muslim commander assesses the situation. If the enemy forces are decimated thoroughly, it is most likely in such a situation that bringing the people in like Ma-Malakat Aymanukum is at that point a mercy to them.
Rather than leave women and children to wonder and roam hoping others would take them in.
“It is not fit for a Prophet that he should take prisoners of war until he has thoroughly subdued the land. You settled with the fleeting gains of this world, while Allah’s aim is the Hereafter. Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 8:67)
This verse was sent down as a rebuke to the companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw). The reason is given in the verse itself: “until he has thoroughly subdued the land,” and “You settled with the fleeting gains of this world.” During the battle of Badr, when the enemy was fleeing, many of the companions started to immediately turn their attention to the war booty. However, they should have subdued their enemy completely. Enemies that you let get away are people who regroup, and you have to face another field of battle.
Not everyone would necessarily want to have extra mouths to feed.
Ma’rur b. Suwaid reported:
I saw Abu Dharr wearing clothes, and the slave wearing similar ones. I asked him about it, and he narrated that he had abused a person during the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger (saw) and he reproached him for his mother. That person came to Allah’s Messenger (saw) and made mention of that to him. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (saw) said: You are a person who has (remnants of) ignorance in him. Your slaves are brothers of yours. Allah has placed them in your hand, and he who has his brother under him, he should feed him with what he eats, and dress him with what he dresses himself, and do not burden them beyond their capacities, and if you burden them, (beyond their capacities), then help them.
Let us think of today’s example of a domestic helper. Not everyone can afford to have a domestic helper even if they want one. Also think of accommodation. We are surprised at all the discussion on this topic. It is not approached from a practical and pragmatic aspect of whether everyone would put their hands up to volunteer to have a slave. Keep in mind, the vast majority of the companions were people who were already under a great deal of duress and many of them were not people of means. It is likely those who took such people were those who handed livestock or fields to tend to. In other words, they saw a practical and pragmatic benefit in taking in and taking care of such people.
The objective of the Muslim man in war.
We also need to bear in mind that the objective of the Muslim man in war is to seek shahada. Why would any Muslim man in their right mind and right state of emaan settle for the paltry gains of this worldly life when the hereafter and all its blessings awaits!
“O believers! Do not be like the unfaithful who say about their brothers who travel throughout the land or engage in battle, “If they had stayed with us, they would not have died or been killed.” Allah makes such thinking a cause of agony in their hearts. It is Allah who gives life and causes death. And Allah is All-Seeing of what you do. Should you be martyred or die in the cause of Allah, then His forgiveness and mercy are far better than whatever ˹wealth˺ those ˹who stay behind˺ accumulate. Whether you die or are martyred—all of you will be gathered before Allah.” (Qur’an 3:156-158)
“Never think of those martyred in the cause of Allah as dead. In fact, they are alive with their Lord, well provided for rejoicing in Allah’s bounties and being delighted for those yet to join them. There will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve.” (Qur’an 3:169-170)
What is ultimately the objective in Islam of having Ma-Malakat Aymanukumfrom wars?
Firstly, Islam and the Muslims would prefer not to have wars to begin with. Let’s establish this.
Secondly, the ultimate objective is the re-integration of such people into society. That is what we need to keep in mind when going forward. Does the Qur’an encourage, allow, or find avenues for this? Does Islam really set about to do this or does it just talk? Let us see.
The Qur’an and the New Testament & TNCH
There is not a single verse in the New Testament encouraging anyone ever to free a slave. Not one.
Jesus, as recorded in the New Testament, had two interactions with slaves. Both of whom he healed. But not once was there a command to set the slave free — which shows, morally speaking, he was quite fine with it as a reality of society.
In fact, Christians have had to turn this Messianic Prophecy into some Christological view about Christ Jesus (as) saving people from sins!
“The spirit of the Lord God was upon me, since the Lord anointed me to bring tidings to the humble, He sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to declare freedom for the captives, and for the prisoners to free from captivity.” (Isaiah 61:1)
Jesus (as) during his ministry (according to the NT) did nothing of the kind. So the captives here must be interpreted as captives to sins.
Christians will often quote the following verse to claim this abolishes slavery.
“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)
This verse says nothing about abolishing slavery. It simply speaks of all being equal in Christ. The proof of that is that this verse has been read down through the ages and Christians had no issues with keeping slaves.
“Slaves, in reverent fear of God, submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.” (1 Peter 2:18)
In fact, in the entire TNCH of Judaism (what Christians call the Old Testament) there were no examples of encouraging the freeing of slaves! What you will find is that if your slave is a Hebrew, he cannot be a slave beyond 6 years, and you must set him free. There is no such law for non-Hebrew people!
“Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free.” (Exodus 21:1-6)
Freeing of slaves was only in relation to their own people.
Then the Holy Trinity (Father, Jesus and The Holy Spirit) commanded:
“When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.” (Deuteronomy 20:10-18)
The Holy Trinity (Father Jesus and The Holy Spirit) did not chide or stop Moses when he stated:
“And Moses said to them, Have you saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that have known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” (Numbers 31:15-18)
Then the Holy Trinity (Father, Jesus and The Holy Spirit) commanded:
“When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.” (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)
Then the Holy Trinity (Father, Jesus and The Holy Spirit) commanded:
“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.” (Leviticus 25: 44-46)
Partus sequitur ventrem or descent-based slavery in Islam, Judaism and Christianity.
What does this mean? In other world views, if a person is born to a slave woman, they too would be born into slavery. This is not the case in Islam. The person born to a slave is a free person. We do not have baby slaves. The first documented recorded example in the history of getting rid of descent-based slavery is in Islam!
Now, what does the Bible (New Testament/TNCH) say in regard to this? Nothing.
ATONE FOR SINS BY FREEING A (RAQAB/NECK) SLAVE.
The first point is what we have already covered in regard to (Qur’an 47:4) above. That is immediate emancipation. Either by a good will gesture, ransom or via prisoner exchange.
Now what we are going to share with you, dear readers, leaves no good options for the haters of Islam.
They will have to admit the (raqab) were not something in abundance among Muslims. Or.
That the Qur’an is a divine revelation as it’s author (Allah), being the All-Knowing, laid out a plan for Muslims to get atonement when no (raqab) would be available: -for example, in the future.
Thie following verses demonstrate that the institution of slavery need not endure.
“Allah will not impose blame upon you for what is meaningless in your oaths, but He will impose blame upon you for [breaking] what you intended of oaths. So its expiation is the feeding of ten poor people from the average of that which you feed your families or clothing them or the liberation of (raqabatin) a slave.” “But if none of this is affordable, then you must fast three days. This is the penalty for breaking your oaths. So be mindful of your oaths. This is how Allah makes things clear to you, so perhaps you will be grateful.”(Qur’an 5:89)
“It is not lawful for a believer to kill another except by mistake. And whoever kills a believer unintentionally must free a believing slave and pay blood-money to the victim’s family—unless they waive it charitably. But if the victim is a believer from a hostile people, then a believing (raqabatin) slave must be freed. And if the victim is from a people bound with you in a treaty, then blood-money must be paid to the family along with freeing a believing slave (raqabatin). Those who are unable, let them fast two consecutive months—as a means of repentance to Allah. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 4:92)
“And those who pronounce thihar from their wives and then [wish to] go back on what they said – then [there must be] the freeing of a slave (raqabatin) before they touch one another. That is what you are admonished thereby; and Allah is Acquainted with what you do.” “But if the husband cannot afford this, let him then fast two consecutive months before the couple touch each other. But if he is unable, then let him feed sixty poor people. This is to re-affirm your faith in Allah and His Messenger. These are the limits set by Allah. And the disbelievers will suffer a painful punishment.” (Qur’an 58:3-4)
Prima Qur’an comments: If you look at the expiation for sin, it is clear from this that Allah (swt) offers several solutions if one is unable to free the neck (of a slave).
Freeing slaves
Freeing slaves along with blood money.
Feeding 60 poor people.
Fasting, depending on the nature of the sin; 3 days or up to 120 days consecutively.
Fasting can only be an option if the person does not have the means to free a neck (slave) or there are simply no slaves (necks) to be freed!
That is to say that freeing a neck (slave) is given priority in terms of expiation of sins!
Zakat — one of the five pillars of Islam and forced tax collection on the Muslim faithful by the Amir is used to set slaves free!
“Zakah expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy and for those employed to collect [zakah] and for bringing hearts together [for Islam] and for freeing captives (l-riqabi) and for those in debt and for the cause of Allah and for the [stranded] traveler – an obligation [imposed] by Allah. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.” (Qur’an 9:60)
Zakah, which comes from an Arabic root word meaning to purify, is one of the five pillars of Islam. In the context of Zakah distribution, it is the purification of one’s wealth. This means that the money that is generated by this forced tax collection is used to free slaves!
There are 8 ahsnaf (beneficiaries of Zakah).
Fakir -One who has no means of livelihood or material possession.
Miskin -One who has insufficient means to sustain their livelihood.
Amil -The person who collects the Zakah, to reward the dutiful.
Muallaf-Assistance for those who recently embraced Islam.
Riqab-Freeing of slaves.
Gharimin-One who is in debt needs assistance to pay off a debt.
Fisabillah-Those who fights in the cause of Allah-or to sustain those who lost bread winners in the war.
Ibnussabil-Those who are travelers or on a journey
At this point, a Muslim should lift his/her head up with pride and say: “Al hamdulillah, I am a Muslim! What other system is there like this in any other faith tradition?”
Islam encourages the freeing of slaves and especially tells us that it is a quick path to righteousness & spiritual elevation.
How will you comprehend what the steep ascent is? It is freeing a slave (raqabatin -a neck) or giving of food at the time of famine to an orphan or near of kin or some needy person in distress.” (Qur’an 90:12-16)
“It is not righteousness that you turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves (l-riqābi) freeing the necks -slaves); to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which you have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah-fearing.” (Qur’an 2:177)
The Qur’an informs us that when it comes to choosing a life partner and whom to continue our lineage with that a believing slave is better than a disbelieving free person.
“And do not marry mushrik women until they believe. And a believing wala-amatun (bondwoman) is better than a mushrik, even though she might please you. And do not marry mushrik men until they believe. And a believing wala-abdun (bondman) is better than a mushrik, even though he might please you. Those invite to the Fire, but Allah invites to Paradise and to forgiveness, by His permission. And He makes clear His verses to the people that perhaps they may remember.” (Qur’an 2:221)
In the scenario above, the slave has a low status before the people.
The free person has a high status before the people.
In both situations, when a believer is to access who to give their son or daughter to for the continuation of their lineage, the believer is always superior to the unbeliever in every scenario. The believing slave is leagues above the unbelieving free person.
The above verse is used by our school, the Ibadi school, as a proof against anyone who states that someone who is Quraysh is, by default, superior to a non-Qurashi. Or, that an Arab is superior to a non-Arab. This verse is definite proof against that position.
Various hadith about slaves
Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama and Marwan:
When the delegates of the tribe of Hawazin came to the Prophet (saw) he stood up amongst the people, Glorified and Praised Allah as He deserved, and said, “Then after: Your brethren have come to you with repentance and I see it logical to return to them their captives; so whoever amongst you likes to do that as a favor, then he can do it, and whoever of you like to stick to his share till we give him his right from the very first Fai (war booty) (1) which Allah will bestow on us, then (he can do so).” The people replied, “We do that (to return the captives) willingly as a favor for your sake.”
Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “He who has a slave-girl and educates and treats her nicely and then manumits and marries her, will get a double reward.”
I came to Ibn ‘Umar when he set his slave free. He took a stick or something else from the earth and said; for me there is no reward even equivalent to this. I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: If anyone slaps or beats his slave the atonement due from him is to set him free.
The Prophet (saw) said, “Allah says, ‘I will be against three persons on the Day of Resurrection: -1. One who makes a covenant in My Name, but he proves treacherous. -2. One who sells a free person (as a slave) and eats the price, -3. And one who employs a laborer and gets the full work done by him but does not pay him his wages.’ “
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying:
None of you should say: My bondman, for all of you are the bondmen of Allah, but say: My young man, and the servant should not say: My Lord, but should say: My chief.
It is also clear from the above hadith that someone who had the status of slave can rise to the ranks of being the commander of the faithful. That is the Amir al-Mu’minin (Commander of the Faithful) of the entirety of all Muslims!
In fact, the above hadith is used by our school; The Ibadi school against the Shi’i and Sunni schools, which state the ruler of the Muslims must only be from the Quraysh (Sunni from any member of Quraysh) and (Shi”i from the Prophet’s lineage which is Quraysh).
Addressing the issue ofMa-Malakat Aymanukum
First, who are the Ma-Malakat Aymanukum?
Recall the definition.
Ma-Malakat Aymanukum (Those whom your right-hand posses /those who you are your oath of protection/You are a custodian over them)
The expression: right-hand posses is an idiom or expression which means those under your authority, custody, care, provision. The right hand is always used as an expression of something noble and good.
“So as for he who is given his record in his right hand, he will say, “Here, read my record!” (Qur’an 69:19)
The Ma-Malakat Aymanukum are never titled as those whom your left-hand posses. As if they were something disposable and ignoble.
They are those who have been taken under the protection of Muslim households (who have the means and capacity to care for them). Not all Muslim households would volunteer for this. So this offered Muslims from different social economic backgrounds an opportunity to receive reward in different ways.
To simply let such people go.
To earn rewards by bringing in these people under the care and provision of a Muslim household.
Also, bear in mind that option 2 was most likely, in many cases, the preferred choice even from the vantage point of those captured. Once your men, husbands, protectors, army have been decimated, where will you go? To whom will you turn to? Also, do keep in mind that Ma-Malakat Aymanukum is not simply women and children as it also includes men.
So let us tackle the first supposed topic of controversy head on.
Can Muslim women /Muslim men rape, molest or sexually exploit their Ma-Malakat Aymanukum against their will?
“Why should you not fight in the cause of Allah when weak men, women, and children are imploring: “Our Lord, deliver us from this community whose people are oppressive, and be You our Lord and Master.” (Qur’an 4:75)
How would this du’a to Allah to send people who deliver them from oppression make sense if Muslims turned around and did the same thing?
“And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquility in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give though.” (Qur’an 30:21)
One of the means by which a Muslim woman may find her future husband or by which a Muslim man may find his future wife is by means of milk al yamin. Is it really to be believed that this Muslim woman or man can now rape or molest his/her milk al yamin without his/her consent and he/she (the victim) will be among those who are filled with affection and mercy for his wife or her husband?
Remember that Allah (swt) has mentioned that this category of people, as believers, are better for our sons and daughters as future partners than disbelievers, who are free people.
“And do not marry mushrik women until they believe. And a believing wala-amatun (bondwoman) is better than a mushrik, even though she might please you. And do not marry mushrik men until they believe. And a believing wala-abdun (bondman) is better than a mushrik, even though he might please you. Those invite to the Fire, but Allāh invites to Paradise and to forgiveness, by His permission. And He makes clear His verses to the people that perhaps they may remember.” (Qur’an 2:221)
What kind of healthy or wholesome relationship does one think will come out of those who suffered abuse?
Even this day, those of us who have married men and women who have been raped or molested by their mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, guardians know the trauma and immense challenge it takes building trust with our partners.
Next point:
Zadhan said:
I came to Ibn ‘Umar when he set his slave free. He took a stick or something else from the earth and said; for me there is no reward even equivalent to this. I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: If anyone slaps or beats his slave (mamluka) the atonement due from him is to set him free.
If you are not to slap or beat your slave, how is that you can force them against their will?
The Qur’an commands Chastity.
“You shall maintain chastity, not committing adultery, nor taking secret lovers.” (Qur’an 5:5)
“Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and guard their chastity. That is purer for them. Surely Allah is All-Aware of what they do.” (Qur’an 24:30)
“As for the one who reverenced the majesty of his Lord, and enjoined the self from sinful lusts. Paradise will be the abode.” (Qur’an 79:40-41)
“Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away, the companion at your side, the traveler, and those whom (malakat aymanukum) your right hands possess. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are stingy and boastful.” (Qur’an 4:36)
Allah (swt) has put the malakat aymankum on the same level, and they should be treated with good as their parents, relatives, orphans, needy, neighbor, traveler, companion and even neighbor not adjacent to you.
Can it be said that if these people are molested against their consent, that they are being treated with good?
“Marry off the singles among you, as well as the righteous of your bondmen and bondwomen(Ibadikum wa-imaikum). If they are poor, Allah will enrich them out of His bounty. For Allah is All-Bountiful, All-Knowing. And let those who do not have the means to marry should (walyyasta’fifi)-show restraint and/or keep themselves chaste until Allah enriches them out of His bounty. And if any of those who your right hand posses (malakat aymanukum) desires a contract, make it possible for them, if you find goodness in them. And give them some of Allah’s wealth which He has granted you. Do not force your girls into prostitution (l-bighai)for your own worldly gains while they wish to remain chaste. And if someone coerces them, then after such a coercion Allah is certainly All-Forgiving, Most Merciful . Indeed, We have sent down to you clear revelations, along with examples of those who had gone before you, and a lesson to the Allah-fearing. (Qur’an 24:32-34)
Prima Qur’ancomments:
1) Allah tells us to marry those who are single among us. As well as marry the bondmen and bondwomen.
2) Those who do not have the means to marry should remain chaste/show restraint. — Not that a Muslim woman can go and rape or molest a man, or that a Muslim man can go and rape and molest a woman. In fact, if they were allowed to do so, there would be no injunction for them to show restraint.
3)If any malakat aymanukum wants to get into a contract to buy their freedom, make it possible for them, in fact give them some of the wealth Allah gave you! (Allah swt is reminding us that, after all, he is the source of all wealth).
4) Do not force your girls into prostitution. If this is done, then Allah forgives this coercion (of the girl), not the one who forces them as some twisted Anti Muslims claim. In fact, if it was fine for them to force them into prostitution, the warning to tell them not to do so when be redundant to begin with.
5) (l-bighai) means more than prostitution it means any type of lewdness. Certainly, having inappropriate relations with someone to whom you are not married constitutes exactly this.
6) You will also see this is why no punishment is meted out to unmarried women from Malakat Aymanukum when we discuss Qur’an 4:25. Because of her social and economic condition, it could be quite challenging to tell if she is being forced to do something because she is doing it of her own volition. This ambiguity in the law is also proof enough that they cannot be coerced into intimacy. As stated, if they were forced the fault is with the one who coerces and not the coerced.
“And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then from those (malakat aymanukum min fatayatikumu l-mu’minati) what your right hands possess that are believers. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people ahlihinna (of their people/family)and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. They should be (muh’sanatin ghayra musafihatin) chaste not those who commit immorality) nor those who take [secret] lovers (akhdanin). But once they are in the sacred bond of marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. This [allowance] is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:25)
Prima Qur’an comments:
1) If you cannot afford to marry free believing women, then you marry those whom your right hand possesses. Due to the social and economic status of free women, it is possible that they may demand a higher dowry, among other things.
2) If they have family or tribe that you, or they know of, then you seek permission from their family or tribe.
3) They should be chaste. One cannot be chaste if it is allowable to be unchaste.
4) They should not have secret lovers.
It should be very clear that these women are not being fondled, molested or raped. Also, the inverse is true; that it should be clear that when Muslim women marry such men that they are not being fondled, molested or raped. Because then they would not be from the category of the chaste; nor are they from those who do not have secret lovers.
By the way, in many cases, in the above scenario, the mahr (the bridal dowry) was to grant her freedom. In other cases, this was not so.
5) But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them there is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. This point is something that is quite phenomenal that many people do not ponder over. Usually, in a society, a person of lower socioeconomic status would be treated as a lesser person than those with higher social economic status. Quran 4:25 goes against that norm.
That is why, in our school, the punishments for adultery and pre-marital sex are meted out like so:
Free Woman/Man that are married =Rajm.
Free Woman/Man that are unmarried =100 lashes.
Slave Woman/Man that are married =50 lashes.
Slave Woman/Man that is unmarried = Taazir.
A tazir punishment is when there is nothing explicit from the Qur’an or Sunnah. It is discretionary. It could be corporeal in nature, it could be harsh words of admonishment.
“Do not force your girls into prostitution (l-bighai)for your own worldly gains while they wish to remain chaste.”
Due to the social and economic condition of this person, it would be very difficult to pin anything on them. Especially in light of the fact that they very well could be forced.
We have not found any cases in the Ibadi school of said individuals (category 4) being punished.
“And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then one or those your right hand possesses (malakat aymanukum). That is more suitable that you may not incline (ta’ulu)-injustice, oppression. And give the women [upon marriage] their [bridal] gifts graciously. But if they give up willingly to you anything of it, then take it in satisfaction and ease.” (Qur’an 4:3-4)
Prima Qur’ancomments:
1) If you fear that you will not do justice when marrying many orphan women, then marry one from among them (malakat aymanukum). In other words, these women from the malakat aymanukum are there for your consideration.
2) Orphan girls here are still free women. They are simply free women that do not have any known family or guardians.
3) Give them (malakat aymanukum)their bridal gift.
And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. (malakat aymanukum)[This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse (muh’sinina ghayra musafihina So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise. (Qur’an 4:24)
If we Muslims were such immoral people, why would we need to be consoled that it is fine to marry women from those whom our right-hand posses that were already married?
In other words, this verse says that those women who are already married to those whom Islam would not recognize the validity of their marriage contract, you can marry them.
Notice that, again, the malakat aymanukum are spoken of in the context of marriage. That beyond them are other women who are lawful to you provided you desire chastity and not unlawful intercourse.
Let us put it like this. We will use the example of the law of the former United States. The former United States has a law that says if a person is married, and then they seek to get married to another individual, this is called bigamy.
So here is the scenario. A married woman in the former United States converts to Islam and seeks a divorce from her husband. The divorce proceedings are taking a long time. In the meantime, this woman does not live with her husband, nor does she receive sustenance or care from him. Over the course of time, she has been made known of an interest in her by a Muslim man. After meeting up with the suitor in the appropriate settings, they decide to marry. The Imam of the Masjid performs the nikah. Technically, this woman is married to her husband (by U.S. law). However, in Islam, the moment she became a Muslim and her husband did not follow suit, that marriage dissolved. They are married in the sight of Allah (swt) and that is what matters. As long as they do not go and try and register their marriage, the wife would be free from the charge of bigamy in U.S. law.*
*Note as Muslims we have to respect the laws of the nations that we reside in.
If we were an Imam in the former United States, we would officiate such a nikah.
“O you who have believed, when the believing women come to you as emigrants, examine them. Allah is most knowing as to their faith. And if you know them to be believers, then do not return them to the disbelievers; they are not lawful [wives] for them, nor are they lawful [husbands] for them. But give the disbelievers what they have spent. And there is no blame upon you if you marry them when you have given them their due compensation. And hold not to marriage bonds with disbelieving women, but ask for what you have spent and let them ask for what they have spent. That is the judgement of Allah ; He judges between you. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.” (Qur’an 60:10)
So it can be asked is it not inherently morally wrong to marry a woman who is already “lawfully” married to another man according to their custom, beliefs or creed?
Notice we said “lawfully” in quotes. That is because who determines what is or is not lawful marriage? Thus, in the above text, a believing woman is indeed married to a disbelieving man according to the laws, customs and beliefs of his society and his people. Thus, she is in adultery in accordance with them. However, Allah (swt) has made that marriage null and void!
In fact, Allah (swt) is being rather magnanimous by ordering: But give the disbelievers what they have spent. When Allah (swt) could have ordered that they receive nothing!
Now we could turn around and ask the Jews and Christians the following: What do you say on these matters? It is easy to talk the talk, but do you walk the walk? So let us give them a scenario.
Let us say a Muslim woman has now converted to Christianity. She wanted to leave a horrible marriage she was in. Her husband would in no way divorce her. This woman left Islam and became a Christian. She flees to the former United States. What is the position of Judaism and Christianity on her matter?
Does she remain single for the rest of her life or does not the law of the land have the power to nullify or make null her marriage? Technically, she is still married to that man and will be until he divorces her (according to the laws of his land).
“O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those (malakat yaminuka) whom your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives] and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who emigrated with you and a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet [and] if the Prophet wishes to marry her, [this is] only for you, excluding the [other] believers. We certainly know what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their wives and those their right hands possess,(malakat aymanuhum) in order that there will be upon you no discomfort. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 33:50)
Daughters of paternal uncles.
Daughters of paternal aunts.
Daughters of maternal uncles
Daughters of maternal aunts.
Any believing woman who gives herself to you. If the Prophet wishes to marry her.
Does anyone believe for a moment that the above verse is saying that if the Blessed Prophet (saw) so wished that he could be intimate with his cousins without being married to them?
In fact, category 5 (any believing woman) is explicitly followed up by the desire to marry her.
Thus, those whom your right hand possesses (malakat yaminuka) are also under these categories. That they are among the women the Blessed Prophet (saw) can marry if he so chooses. As he did so with Safiyah (ra).
“You, [O Muḥammed], may put aside whom you will of them or take to yourself whom you will. And any that you desire of those [wives] from whom you had [temporarily] separated – there is no blame upon you [in returning her]. That is more suitable that they should be content and not grieve and that they should be satisfied with what you have given them – all of them. And Allah knows what is in your hearts. And ever is Allah Knowing and Forbearing.” (Qur’an 33:51)
THE MALAKAT YAMIN BECAME THE ONLY OPTION FOR THE BLESSED PROPHET (SAW).
“Not lawful to you, [O Muḥammed], are [any additional] women after [this], nor [is it] for you to exchange them for [other] wives, even if their beauty were to please you, except what your right hand possesses (malakat yaminuka). And ever is Allah, over all things, an Observer.” (Qur’an 33:52)
“Not lawful to you, [O Muḥammed], are [any additional] women after [this], nor [is it] for you to exchange them for [other] wives, even if their beauty were to please you.”
This directly refutes two major accusations that have been leveled against the Blessed Prophet (saw).
The accusation that he made up the revelation to suit himself.
Him having unrestrained and unchecked desires.
Allah (swt) prohibits the Prophet to: a) Marry more free women. Even if he feels a magnetic pull towards them. b) Divorce any of his current wives.
By means of this verse, they were secured from divorce. Allah (swt) decreed that they would be his wives in this world and in the world to come. The very definition of soul mates!
The only exception or clause is: “(malakat yaminuka).” Those captives seized in war. They are permissible for you to marry.
Verses concerning relaxed dress code around malakat aymanukum
“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard (wayaḥfaẓna) their modesty(furūjahunna); that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or (malakat aymanuhuna (their right hands possess), or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O you Believers! turn you all together towards Allah, that you may attain Bliss.”(Qur’an 24:31)
Except for: their husbands. Their fathers. Their Father-In-Law. Their Sons. Their husbands sons (other marriages). Their brothers, their brother’s sons. Their Sister’s Sons. Other women. Malakat Aymanukum. The male attendants who have no desire: examples: eunuchs or the very old. Children who are unaware or naive.
Prima Qur’an comments: It should be clear that the malakat aymanukum are treated in a sense as family. They are not locked outside the home in some cold barn. They are part and parcel of the family unit, hence why a relaxation in the dress code. It is almost unavoidable at times.
“O you who have believed, let those whom your right hands possess (malakat aymanukum) and those who have not [yet] reached puberty among (yablughu l-huluma (reached puberty) you ask permission of you [before entering] at three times: before the dawn prayer and when you put aside your clothing [for rest] at noon and after the night prayer. [These are] three times of privacy for you. There is no blame upon you nor upon them beyond these [periods], for they continually circulate among you – some of you, among others. Thus does Allah make clear to you the verses; and Allah is Knowing and Wise.” (Qur’an 24:58)
“No blame will be attached to the blind, the lame, the sick. Whether you eat in your own houses, or those of your fathers, your mothers, your brothers, your sisters, your paternal uncles, your paternal aunts, your maternal uncles, your maternal aunts, houses malakat mafatihahu (those of whom you been granted victory), or any of your friends’ houses, you will not be blamed: you will not be blamed whether you eat in company or separately. When you enter any house, greet one another with a greeting of blessing and goodness as enjoined by Allah. This is how Allah makes His messages clear to you so that you may understand.” (Qur’an 24:61)
“Whether you reveal anything, or whether you conceal it, surely Allah has knowledge of everything. There is no blame on the Prophet’s wives if they should appear before their fathers, their sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, their fellow women, and those (malakat aymanuhunna) whom their right hands posses. And be mindful of Allah ˹O wives of the Prophet!˺ Surely Allah is a Witness over all things.” (Qur’an 33:54-55)
“And when the inviolable months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 9:5)
The hands in the cookie jar verses?
These are the two verses which are often misquoted and misunderstood as allowing violation of the malakat aymanukum.
“And those who guard (hafizuna)) their modesty (lifurujihim) except with their wives or those (malakat aymanuhum (they possess rightfully) for then they are free from blame, but whoever seeks beyond that are the transgressors.” (Qur’an 70:29-31)
“And who guard (hafizuna) their modesty (lifurujihim) – Save from their wives or those their right hands possess (malakat aymanuhum), for then they are not blameworthy.” (Qur’an 23:5-6)
Recall the verse:
“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard (wayaḥfaẓna) their modesty(furūjahunna).” (Qur’an 24:31)
hafizuna/wayahfazna & lifurujihim/furjuahunna
These two verses, Qur’an 70:29-31 & Qur’an 23:5-6 likewise speak in the same manner. These verses are not about sex.
They are about guarding modesty. The phrase “except with their wives or those their right hands possess” simply defines the boundaries of what is modest — not permission for sexual activity outside of marriage.
In other words, those verses tell a man what is permissible to look at or be uncovered around, not what he may do sexually. To read them as blanket permission for intercourse without marriage is to confuse the category of modesty with the category of sexual relations.
This becomes reinforced with the following verse:
“Tell the believing men to reduce [some] of their vision and guard (wayaḥfaẓū) their private parts (furūjahum). That is purer for them. Indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what they do.” (Qur’an 24:30)
Now have you ever heard anyone argue that in Qur’an 24:31 that women can molest and rape their male servants?
Read again the above verse:
“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard (wayaḥfaẓna) their modesty(furūjahunna); that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or (malakat aymanuhuna (their right hands possess), or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O you Believers! turn you all together towards Allah, that you may attain Bliss.”(Qur’an 24:31)
However, if one wants to have sexual access to their malakat aymanukum, the following verses tell us how this is done:
We get here through marriage to the (malakat aymanuhum)
And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then from those (malakat aymanukum min fatayatikumu l-mu’minati) what your right hands possess that are believers. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people ahlihinna (of their people/family)and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. They should be (muh’sanatin ghayra musafihatin) chaste not those who commit immorality) nor those who take [secret] lovers (akhdanin).” (Qur’an 4:25)
“But if you fear that you will not be just, then one or those your right hand possesses (malakat aymanukum). That is more suitable that you may not incline (ta’ulu)-injustice, oppression. And give the women [upon marriage] their [bridal] gifts graciously.” (Qur’an 4:3-4)
We think most people have no idea how simple a nikah really truly is in Islam. Why would any Muslim, much less the Blessed Prophet (saw) rush to the questionable when the established and good is so easy to do and accessible?
What is the status of humanity before Allah?
“O humanity! Indeed, We created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you may know one another. Surely the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous among you. Allah is truly All-Knowing, All-Aware.” (Qur’an 49:13)
Narrated AbuHurayrah:
“The Prophet (saw) said: Allah, Most High, has removed from you the pride of the pre-Islamic period and its boasting in ancestors. One is only a pious believer or a miserable sinner. You are sons of Adam, and Adam came from dust. Let the people cease to boast about their ancestors. They are merely fuel in Jahannam; or they will certainly be of less account with Allah than the beetle which rolls dung with its nose.”
There were three classes of people when Islam was seeking to be established:
In regard to freedom of movement, there were three social classes of people when Islam was seeking to be established. Free Person Milk Al Yamin -from wars. Raqib (slave) -from the non Muslims. We should clarify that this also does mean Muslims who had slaves prior to embracing Islam.
In regard to freedom of movement, there were two classes of people when Islam was established.
Free Person Milk Al Yamin-from wars against Muslims. (If no wars =no Milk Al Yamin)
Muslims can marry the following:
1) Can marry a free Muslim- (open to men and women) 2) Can marry a Jew or a Christian (under Islamic governance) — open only to men. 3) Can marry the believer from the milk-al-yamin -open to men and women.
Will this system ever come back?
Some people think certain injunctions and guidelines in the Islamic legal code are outdated. We say there is absolutely nothing in the Islamic legal code that is outdated or redundant. It is there when needed.
Some people have this idea that Earth will become a utopia in the near future. We have eliminated racism, tribalism, bigotry, hate, poverty, illiteracy, disease. We colonize Mars, Ceres and one day meet a galaxy spanning alien civilization. MAYBE.
Maybe not.
If you look at what holds a society together, it is basically these five things: access to food, access to drinking water, access to medical treatment, a stable government, A military/police force to enforce laws.
Now if you just take away two of these five things — you can pick any two, and you will see the most so-called civilized country become Mad Max in very little time. People take stable, cohesive government for granted. The reality is what we call ‘civilization’ hangs on a very delicate thread.
We have already shown in Qur’an 5:89 and Qur’an 4:92 and Qur’an 58:3-4 where Allah (swt) anticipates a society or periods of time in human civilization in which there will be no slavery.
However, in case the current order breaks down we would rather have laws on the books that can be utilized when needed than not have that guidance at all.
Five times a day throughout the world there is a beautiful call that goes out. Hayya Al Salah -Come To the Prayer. Hayya Al Falah -Come to Success. This beautiful call was first delivered by a freed slave of Ethiopia. He is one of the most blessed and treasured companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw). His name was Bilal ibn Rabah (ra). The first muezzin.
“And give full measure when you measure out, and weigh with a true balance; this is fair and better in the end.” (Qur’an 17:35)
﷽
The Asymmetry No One Talks About
When Christian apologists attack the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw), they have an enormous body of material to work with. They cite the sīrah (biography), the ḥadīth (sayings and actions), and the maghāzī (campaign literature). From his first revelation at age 40 to his death at approximately 63, that is roughly 23 years of public prophetic activity. Even if one includes his life before prophethood, from age 25 (his first marriage to Khadījah-ra) to 40, that adds another 15 years of documented context. In total, critics have 35+ years of recorded material to analyze, critique, and polemicize.
But what about Jesus?
Most Christians have never stopped to ask a simple question: How many actual words attributed to Jesus are even in the New Testament? And more importantly: How much of Jesus’s life is actually recorded?
This article is not an argument for Islam. It is an argument for intellectual honesty. The comparison Christian apologists make between Jesus(as) and Muhammed (saw) is not balanced — not because Islam/Christianity is true/false, but because the evidentiary basis for each figure is radically different.
The Raw Data – How Many Words of Jesus Actually Exist?
According to a detailed analysis from synopticgospel.com, the total number of words attributed to Jesus Christ in the four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) is 31,426.
But that number includes duplicate material. The same speeches and parables appear in multiple Gospels. Once you exclude the duplication of Jesus’s speeches across the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), the total unique words drop significantly.
If you enter 31,426 words into a standard “Convert Words to Minutes” speech calculator, you find that it would take approximately 242 minutes — or about 4 hours — to read all of Jesus’s words aloud.
That is the sum total. Four hours of reading. That is everything Jesus is recorded as saying in the four Gospels.
Beyond the Gospels – Jesus’s Words in the Rest of the New Testament
Most Christians assume the Gospels are where Jesus speaks. That is correct. But what about the rest of the 27-book New Testament canon (the one accepted by Latin Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and most Protestants)?
Here is the complete inventory of words attributed to Jesus outside the four Gospels.
Acts of the Apostles
Acts 1:4-8 – The risen Jesus commands the apostles to wait for the Holy Spirit.
Acts 9:4-16 – Jesus appears to Saul (Paul) on the road to Damascus: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” and subsequent instructions to Ananias.
Acts 11:16 – Peter recalls Jesus’s words: “John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 18:9-10 – Jesus speaks to Paul in a vision at Corinth: “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking… I am with you.”
Acts 20:35 – Paul recalls a saying of Jesus not found in the Gospels: “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”
Acts 22:7-10 – Paul’s retelling of the Damascus road experience.
Acts 22:18-21 – Jesus tells Paul to leave Jerusalem: “Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.”
Acts 23:11 – Jesus stands by Paul: “Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.”
Acts 26:14-18 – Paul’s third retelling, with additional detail: “It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”
1 Corinthians
1 Corinthians 11:24-25 – The institution of the Eucharist: “This is my body… This cup is the new covenant in my blood.”
2 Corinthians
2 Corinthians 12:9 – A saying of Jesus to Paul: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”
Revelation
Revelation 1–3 – The risen Christ speaks to the seven churches: “I am the Alpha and the Omega… Write to the angel of the church in Ephesus…” (approximately 20-30 verses of direct speech).
The Rest – Complete Silence
The following New Testament books contain zero direct words attributed to Jesus:
Romans
Galatians
Colossians
Ephesians
Philippians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
That is 19 books out of 27 with absolutely no direct quotation of Jesus.
The 27-Book Canon – A Closer Look
It is worth remembering that the 27-book New Testament was not the only canon in early Christianity. There were rival Christian communities with 22-book New Testaments and others with 35-book New Testaments. The canon we have today is the result of debates, disputes, and eventual ecclesiastical decisions.
But even granting the 27-book canon as authoritative, the fact remains:
Only 8 books contain any direct words of Jesus: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, and Revelation.
19 books (70% of the New Testament by book count) have no words of Jesus in them at all.
Most Christians never stop to think about this. They assume the New Testament is full of Jesus speaking. In reality, the vast majority of the New Testament is written about Jesus — not by him, and not quoting him.
The 90% Problem – Jesus Lived 33 Years. We Have 3.
According to Luke 3:23, Jesus began his public ministry when he was “about thirty years old.” Traditional dating places his birth at approximately 4 BC and his crucifixion around AD 30 or 33. That gives him a lifespan of roughly 33 years.
His public ministry — the period from which we have any recorded words at all — lasted approximately 3 years.
3 years out of 33 = approximately 9% of his life.
That means 91% of Jesus’s life is completely silent in the New Testament.
From birth to age 12: one brief episode in the temple (Luke 2:41-52).
From age 12 to age 30: absolute silence. Nothing. No words. No actions. No teachings.
From age 30 to 33: roughly 4 hours of unique sayings (after excluding Synoptic duplicates).
Think about that. God incarnate, according to Christian theology, walked the earth for 33 years. The Christian record gives us only a handful of episodes from a 3-year window. The rest is silence.
Christian theology has an answer for this: the “hidden years” demonstrate Jesus’s full humanity, his ordinary life, his obedience. But that answer does not solve the historical or polemical problem. It simply explains why the silence is theologically acceptable.
For the purpose of comparing Jesus (as) to Muhammed (saw), the silence is not a theological virtue. It is an evidentiary void.
Age and Life Experience: The Unasked Question
There is another layer to this asymmetry that is almost never discussed: age. Jesus (as) died at approximately 33 years old. Muhammed (saw) died at approximately 63 years old. That is a 30-year difference. A full generation.
Now ask yourself: If Jesus had lived to 63 — if his public ministry had continued for another three decades beyond the brief three years recorded in the Gospels — how much more material would the New Testament contain? How many more sermons? How many more parables? How many more interactions with political authorities, with families, with enemies, with disciples who failed him? How many more decisions under pressure, more moments of moral complexity, more spoken words?
We cannot know, of course. The New Testament does not tell us. But that is precisely the point.
The Christian apologist who contrasts 23 years of prophetic activity (or 35+ years of documented adult life) with Jesus’s 3 years of public ministry is not comparing like with like. They are comparing a life cut short in its early thirties — a life whose longest documented period is measured in hours of speech — with a life that spanned more than six decades and produced enough literature to fill multiple volumes of hadith, sīrah, and tafsīr.
It is entirely possible that a 63-year-old Jesus would have said and done things that a 33-year-old Jesus did not. Perhaps he would have married. Perhaps he would have wielded political power. Perhaps he would have led what looked like military campaigns. Perhaps he would have said more things that later generations found morally uncomfortable. More so even than what we find today. We will never know. Because the claim is he died young. And the Gospels, as they exist, give us almost nothing from the first 30 years of his life and only a sliver from his final three.
To pretend that the silence of the New Testament is a moral or theological victory for Christianity — is to mistake absence of evidence for evidence of moral superiority. That is not scholarship. That is polemics dressed up as piety.
4 Hours vs. 35 Years – The Evidentiary Chasm
Now let us put the two figures side by side.
The data
Jesus (canonical NT)
Muhammed (sīrah, ḥadīth, maghāzī)
Public prophetic ministry
~3 years
~23 years (610-632 CE)
Total documented life
~9% (3 of 33 years)
~100% of prophetic period
Unique spoken words
~4 hours of reading aloud possibly 2 hours without repetitions from the synoptics.
Hundreds of thousands of ḥadīth (of various grades of authenticity)
Narrow: rural Galilee, Jerusalem, Roman occupation
Broad: Medinan state, marraiges, diplomacy, law, economics, community governance
When Christian apologists attack the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw), they have an enormous dataset. They can point to specific battles, specific marriages, specific political decisions, specific legal rulings, and specific moments of apparent moral failure — all dated, documented, and debated within Islamic tradition itself.
When Muslims (or anyone) try to respond symmetrically, they cannot. Not because Jesus was morally superior/inferior, but because the New Testament gives us almost nothing to work with outside a handful of sayings and a short public ministry.
The Christian Apologist’s Blind Spot
Here is the uncomfortable question this raises:
If your case against Muhammed (saw) depends on comparing his documented actions to Jesus’s silence, are you truly making a fair argument?
The Christian apologist will often say: “Jesus never married multiple women. Jesus never led raids. Jesus never owned slaves. Jesus never wielded political power.”
All of that is true — if we limit ourselves to the 3 years and 4 hours of material we have.
But the apologist rarely adds the necessary caveat: “And we have almost no information about what Jesus did or said for the other 30 years of his life.”
The comparison is not between two equally documented figures. It is between:
A man with 35+ years of dense, varied, politically and militarily detailed documentation (Muhammed), and
A man whose recorded words can be read aloud in an afternoon, and whose entire public ministry fits into a 3-year window (Jesus).
That is not a level playing field. It is not a fair comparison. And the Christian apologist who pretends it is has either not thought about the asymmetry or is deliberately ignoring it.
Conclusion – Not a Win, Just an Asymmetry
This article is not arguing that Christianity is false. It is not arguing that Islam is true. It is not even arguing that the Blessed Prophet Muhammwd was a better or worse prophet than Jesus.
It is arguing something much simpler — and much more uncomfortable for the Christian polemicist:
You cannot build a fair case against Muhammed (saw) by relying on a Jesus who barely speaks.
The New Testament is 90% silent about Jesus’s life. He spoke for approximately 4 hours of unique material over a 3-year public ministry. The rest of his 33 years are a blank slate.
The Islamic sources for the life of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) are vastly more detailed, more diverse, and more extensive. That gives the Christian apologist more material. It gives them more material because there is simply more material.
If the Gospels had recorded Jesus from age 12 to 30 — his words, his actions, his relationships, his work, his political views, his family life — the Christian polemic against the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) might look very different. Or it might collapse entirely. We will never know.
Because the New Testament is silent.
And that silence is not the Christian apologist’s ace in the hole. It is the very thing that makes the comparison impossible from the start.
A Note to Christian Readers
If you are a Christian reading this and feeling defensive, ask yourself honestly:
Would you want your case for Jesus to rest on a comparison with the Prophet Muhammed (saw) that requires ignoring 30 years of Jesus’s life and the thinness of the Gospel record?
Or would you rather admit: “We don’t have much from Jesus outside a short ministry. That doesn’t prove Christianity false. But it does mean comparing him to Muhammed (saw) on deeds and sayings is apples to oranges.”
That is all this article asks. Honesty about the data. Just a recognition that the scales are not balanced — and they never were.
May Allah Guide the Jews and the Chrisitians to the truth!
“And one of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the diversity of your languages and colours. Surely in this are signs for those of knowledge.” (Qur’an 30:22)
﷽
When a Muslim reads the Qur’an they find that the diversity of human languages is a sign for people of knowledge.
The Tower of Babel: Genesis chapter 11
“Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.”
“They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”
“But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
“So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel[c]—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.” (Genesis 11:1-9)
When a Muslim reads the Biblical account found in Genesis 11 concerning the origin of the various languages the Muslim walks away very dissapointed.
The motive of the god of Genesis 11 to confuse human language.
The people say: “Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves.”
Then the god of Genesis 11 states: The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.”
If that is the case, why has the god in Genesis 11 allowed for even greater achievements? For example, the Statue of Liberty, the pyramids, the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Empire State Building, the Buruj in Dubai. Why allow humans eventually to travel into space even exceeding the height of any human-made structure?
The origin of the different languages of humanity.
“Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.”
Come, let usgo down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
“So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel[c]—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world.”
Does this not go against what modern anthropology has taught us about the origin of language? This text seems to imply that the god of Genesis 11 confused their language. In fact, it directly states that is why the tower is called Babel, which is also an etymological error. As babel means gate of the god(s).
Does Genesis 11 contradict modern anthropology on language origins?
Language diversity is natural, developing through geographic isolation, migration, cultural drift, and time—not from a single divine punitive act.
The world’s language families (Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan, Afroasiatic, etc.) diverged over tens of thousands of years, not in a single generation.
The etymological error about “Babel”
Biblical claim
Linguistic reality
“Babel” (בָּבֶל – Bavel) means “confusion” (balal – בָּלַל, “to mix”) because Elyon and his gods in Genesis 11 confused language there.
In Akkadian (the actual language of Babylon), Bāb-ilim means “Gate of God” (Bāb = gate, ilim = gods).
The god of Gensis 11 has no foresight.
“If, as one people speaking the same language, they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
This does not show appropriate foresight for a deity that is claimed to be all knowing and knows the future. Why? What is to stop people from learning foreign languages? In fact, we learn foreign languages today with ease. When it says scattered, it does not say permanently scattered. Humans from diverse ethnic groups and tribes frequently travel to diverse regions of the world. If the goal was to keep humans from repeating this mistake by making their languages diverse and scattering them, what is to stop them from learning each other’s languages, meeting up and attempting the whole thing all over again?
If the god of Genesis 11 had the goal to permanently prevent unified human rebellion by confusing language and scattering people, then the intervention fails spectacularly because:
Humans learn foreign languages – Babel didn’t create permanent barriers. It created a temporary inconvenience. People have been learning each other’s languages for millennia. Translators, diplomats, traders, and travelers exist.
Humans reunite across distances – Scattering didn’t prevent migration, trade, conquest, or global communication. The Roman Empire, the Silk Road, the internet, and international air travel prove that scattering is not permanent.
Humans could simply rebuild – Nothing in the text says the god of Genesis 11 will intervene again if they try. Nothing stops future generations from agreeing on a common language (like English as a global lingua franca) and building another tower.
So a literal reading forces this absurd conclusion: Either the god of Genesis 11 didn’t foresee that humans would learn languages and reunite, or the god of Genesis 11 did foresee it and the intervention was pointless.
Possible Christian Responses (and Why They Fail)
Defense 1.
“God confused language permanently by creating irreducible differences.”
Prima Qur’an response:
No. Humans learn second languages constantly. Linguistic difference is a barrier, not an impossibility.
Defense 2.
“God scattered them too far to ever reunite.”
Prima Qur’an response:
History proves otherwise. Humans have circled the globe.
Defense 3.
“God’s goal was not permanent prevention but to slow them down or teach a lesson.”
Prima Qur’an response:
Then the text’s reasoning (“nothing they plan will be impossible”) is overblown. A temporary slowdown doesn’t solve the problem.
Defense 4.
““God was being merciful—scattering prevented worse sin, not the same sin again.”
Prima Qur’an response:
Then why not just say that? And why wouldn’t they just try again later?
Defense 5.
“Learning languages is hard work, and God knew they wouldn’t bother.”
Prima Qur’an response:
They built a giant brick tower with tar mortar. Learning another language is easier than that.
Defense 6.
““This is not a literal history; it’s a story about why the world is divided.”
Prima Qur’an response:
This works! But it abandons literal divine action.
If the god of Genesis 11 is all-knowing (knows the future perfectly) and all-powerful (can do anything), then:
The god of Genesis 11 would have known that confusing language and scattering people would not permanently stop them from reuniting.
Therefore, either:
The god of Genesis 11 was not trying to permanently stop them (so the text’s stated reason is misleading or incomplete), OR
The text is not a reliable account of what an all-knowing deity would actually do (so it’s a human-authored story projecting human concerns onto God), OR
The deity in this story is not the all-knowing, all-powerful God of later theology (but a more limited, anthropomorphic divine being who can be surprised and must improvise).
The last option is actually quite consistent with early Genesis. In Genesis 6, this god regrets making humans and is grieved. In Genesis 11, this god says “Come, let us go down and see” and then “If they have begun this, then nothing will be impossible.” This deity learns, observes, and responds—it does not act with perfect foreknowledge of future human behavior.
If you read Genesis 11 as literal history describing an all-knowing God’s actions, the plan makes no sense. It’s like locking a door but leaving the key in the lock, then being surprised when people open it again.
The Muslim who reads the Qur’an does not need to be at loggerheads with anthropology. Especially when it comes to the study of languages.
“And one of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the diversity of your languages and colours. Surely in this are signs for those of knowledge.” (Qur’an 30:22)
The diversity of human languages is not some half-concocted obstacle that was sudden divine punitive act. Rather the diversity of our languages is something to celebrate, and to investigate. It is a sign of Allah (swt).
May Allah (swt) guide the Jews and Christians so they do not end up in the hellfire.
“That is because Allah He is the Truth (Al Haqq) -the Only True God of all that exists, Who has no partners or rival, the ultimate reality, and what they (those who associate) invoke besides Him, it is Batil (falsehood) And verily, Allah He is the Highest, The Most Great.” (Qur’an 22:62)
“No! We hurl the Truth against Falsehood, and it crushes it. Behold, falsehood does perish! Woe to you for the false things you ascribe.” (Qur’an 21:18)
﷽
The Bible claims to be a repository of divine revelation delivered through prophets. Yet within its own pages lie passages that raise a devastating question: How can anyone know, with objective certainty, whether a prophet speaks for God or for a deceiving spirit?
Two passages—1 Kings 22 (the lying spirit sent to deceive Ahab’s prophets) and 2 Kings 3 (the Moabite king’s child sacrifice to Chemosh that apparently succeeded)—demonstrate that the Bible provides no reliable, objective criterion for distinguishing true prophecy from false. Consequently, confidence in the God of the Bible and the reliability of the prophetic tradition is not rationally justified.
The Lying Spirit of 1 Kings 22
In 1 Kings 22, King Ahab of Israel seeks prophetic guidance before attacking Ramoth-gilead. Four hundred prophets unanimously predict victory. King Jehoshaphat of Judah asks for another prophet. Micaiah son of Imlah is summoned. After initial sarcasm, Micaiah delivers a startling revelation:
“I saw the Lord seated on his throne, with the whole host of heaven standing to his right and to his left. The Lord asked: Who will deceive Ahab, so that he will go up and fall on Ramoth-gilead? And one said this, another that, until this spirit came forth and stood before the Lord, saying, ‘I will deceive him.’ The Lord asked: How? He answered, ‘I will go forth and become a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets.’ The Lord replied: You shall succeed in deceiving him. Go forth and do this. So now, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours; the Lord himself has decreed evil against you.” (1 Kings 22:19–23)
This Is A Huge Problem.
This passage establishes several disturbing facts:
The Lord initiates deception. He does not merely permit a lying spirit to act; he asks for volunteers to deceive Ahab.
The lying spirit acts with divine authorization. The Lord commands, “Go forth and do this.”
The 400 prophets are sincere but deceived. Nothing in the text suggests they are frauds. They experience genuine prophetic ecstasy. They believe they speak for God. They are wrong.
The deception works. Ahab hears the prophesied victory, believes it, goes to battle, and dies.
The Objective Criterion Problem
If a prophet can be sincerely inspired by a lying spirit sent by the Lord, then the prophet’s subjective experience of inspiration is worthless as a test of truth. The 400 prophets felt exactly as true prophets feel. They spoke with confidence. They may even have performed signs (Zedekiah’s iron horns in verse 11). Yet they were deceived.
This means that any prophet at any time could be in the same position. There is no internal marker—no distinctive feeling, no special certainty, no accompanying miracle—that guarantees the message comes from the Lord rather than from a divinely commissioned lying spirit.
Possible Counter-Arguments and Responses
These objections are usually the response of those Christians who believe in Glossolalia, or speaking in tongues. Often other Christians will ask them how do they (Pentacostal, Evangelical) know that they do not have a lying spirit? These interesting internal Christian debates have helped in what follows.
Counter-argument 1: The lying spirit was sent as judgment against Ahab because he had already rejected the truth. The 400 prophets were not typical prophets; they were court prophets who told Ahab what he wanted to hear.
Prima Qur’an Response: This does not solve the objective criterion problem. Even if the 400 prophets were corrupt, the text says the lying spirit entered their mouths. The deception was real. More importantly, how would an observer know, in advance, which prophets are corrupt and which are true? Ahab had no objective way to know that Micaiah was the true prophet and the 400 were deceived until after the battle—when Ahab was dead. The test of fulfillment (Deuteronomy 18:21–22) works only in hindsight.
Counter-argument 2: Deuteronomy 13 provides a test: even if a prophet’s sign comes true, if he leads people to other gods, he is false. The 400 prophets did not do that.
Prima Qur’an Response: Deuteronomy 13 is a necessary test, but not a sufficient one. It catches only prophets who explicitly advocate idolatry. What about prophets who speak in the name of the Lord but are deceived? What about prophets who give military or political advice that leads to disaster? The lying spirit speaks in the name of the Lord. The 400 prophets say, “The Lord will give it into the power of the king” (verse 6). They do not advocate other gods. Yet they are false. Deuteronomy 13 does not identify them.
Counter-argument 3: The test of fulfillment eventually caught the false prophets. Ahab died. Their prophecy failed. That is the objective criterion.
Prima Qur’an Response: This is true but useless for anyone who must make a decision before the event. Ahab needed to know beforethe battle whether to attack. The 400 prophets gave him confident assurance. Micaiah gave him a warning. Ahab chose the majority. He had no objective way to decide which group was telling the truth. The test of fulfillment only works after the fact—after lives have been lost. A decision-making criterion that only works retroactively is not a criterion for decision-making at all.
The God of Chemosh in 2 Kings 3
In 2 Kings 3, the Moabite king rebels against Israel. Jehoram of Israel, Jehoshaphat of Judah, and the king of Edom form a coalition to attack Moab from the south. They run out of water. The prophet Elisha is consulted. He prophesies:
“Thus says the Lord: Dig ditches in this wadi. For thus says the Lord: You will see neither wind nor rain, yet the wadi will fill with water, and you will drink—you, your cattle, and your pack animals. And this is easy in the Lord’s sight; he will also deliver Moab into your power. You will destroy every fortified city and every choice city, cut down every good tree, stop up all the springs, and ruin every fertile field with stones.” (2 Kings 3:16–19)
The next morning, water comes. The Moabites see the water red in the sunlight, mistake it for blood, assume the allied kings have turned on each other, and rush out to plunder. The Israelites rise up and defeat them, pursuing them into Moab.
Then the text continues:
“When the king of Moab saw that the battle was going against him, he took with him seven hundred swordsmen to break through to the king of Edom, but they failed. Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him, and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And great wrath came upon Israel, so they withdrew from him and returned to their own land.” (2 Kings 3:26–27)
Another Massive Problem.
The plain reading of the text is devastating for any claim that the Lord alone is God or that other gods have no real power:
Elisha, a true prophet of the Lord, prophesied total victory. He said Moab would be delivered into Israel’s power. He described complete destruction: every city destroyed, every tree cut down, every spring stopped.
The Moabite king offers his son to Chemosh. This is not a private ritual; it is a public act of desperate propitiation, performed on the wall for both armies to see.
Something happens. The text does not explain the mechanism, but the causal sequence is unmistakable: sacrifice —> great wrath —> Israel withdraws.
Israel does not achieve the prophesied victory. They do not destroy Moab’s cities. They do not cut down its trees. They withdraw. They go home.
The most natural reading is that Chemosh, the Moabite god, was propitiated by the child sacrifice and responded by protecting Moab and driving Israel away.
Score card: Chemosh 1 Yahweh 0.
People May Ask: Does This Mean Chemosh Exists and Has Power?
If the biblical text reports that a sacrifice to Chemosh produced a military victory against an army that had the blessing of the Lord (through Elisha), then one of three conclusions follows:
Chemosh is a real god with real power. The Lord is not the only God, or at least not the only effective God. The Bible contains henotheism (many gods, but Israel must worship only one) rather than monotheism (only one God exists).
The Lord caused the wrath to punish Israel for some unstated sin. But the text does not say this. Elisha’s prophecy was unconditional: “The Lord will deliver Moab into your power.” If the Lord then caused Israel’s defeat, Elisha was a false prophet by Deuteronomy 18’s test. That creates an even larger problem.
The “wrath” was psychological—Israelite morale collapsed at the horror of child sacrifice. But the text does not say that either. It says wrath came upon Israel (qetseph gadol ‘al Yisra’el). The same language is used elsewhere for divine wrath. And psychological collapse is still an effect caused by the sacrifice—an effect that a non-existent god could not produce.
Possible Counter-Arguments and Responses
We have not seen good objectives or responses to the above. However, Christian apologetic is often predictable. Here are some of their possible counters as well as our response.
Counter-argument 1: The withdrawal was temporary. The text does not say Moab won the war. It only says Israel withdrew from that particular siege. Moab remained a vassal or was later subdued.
Priama Qur’an response: This is special pleading. The text presents the withdrawal as a direct consequence of the wrath. Elisha’s prophecy promised total destruction of Moab’s cities. That did not happen. The text does not record any later Moabite subjugation in this campaign. The plain reading is that the sacrifice worked and Israel failed to achieve its objective.
Counter-argument 2: The “great wrath” was from the Lord against Moab, not against Israel. So the wrath came upon Moab, causing the Israelites to withdraw because Moab was now protected by divine wrath.
Prima Qur’an response: The wrath comes after the sacrifice. If the wrath is against Moab, why does Israel withdraw? Israel would press the attack if Moab were under divine wrath. The withdrawal makes sense only if the wrath is against Israel—or if the wrath is Chemosh’s wrath against Israel. The simplest reading remains the most natural: the sacrifice propitiated Chemosh, and Chemosh acted.
Counter-argument 3: Chemosh may have real power, but that power is demonic and subordinate to the Lord.
Prima Qur’an Response: This does not solve the problem; it relocates it. If Chemosh is a demon acting under the Lord’s permission, then the Lord permitted a demon to defeat his own prophet’s prophecy. That means the Lord allows his own true prophets to be publicly humiliated and his people to be defeated by demonic powers. On what basis could anyone then trust a prophetic word? The Lord might have authorized a lying spirit to deceive the prophet (as in 1 Kings 22) or authorized a demon to defeat the army (as in 2 Kings 3). There is no objective way to know.
Counter-argument 4: The story is not about Chemosh’s power but about the horror of child sacrifice. The Israelites withdrew because they were morally repulsed, not because Chemosh did anything.
Prima Qur’an Response: The text does not say this. It says “great wrath came upon Israel.” That is theological language. The author could have written “they were horrified” but did not. Moreover, if the withdrawal was purely psychological, then the Moabite king’s strategy worked—not because Chemosh necesarilyh exists, but because human psychology responded to the horror. That still means the sacrifice was effective. And it means the Lord’s prophet (Elisha) did not foresee this psychological effect, despite having just predicted total victory. That makes Elisha a false prophet by the standard of Deuteronomy 18.
The Real Problem: The Collapse of Objective Criteria
The Bible provides several tests for prophets. Each fails when subjected to the evidence of these passages.
Test One: Fulfillment (Deuteronomy 18:21–22)
“If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord and the word does not come true, that word was not spoken by the Lord.”
The Problem: This test only works after the fact. Ahab needed to decide before the battle. Moreover, 2 Kings 3 shows that even a true prophet (Elisha) can prophesy victory that does not come to pass. Either Elisha was not a true prophet (contradicting the text’s presentation of him) or the test fails. And if a lying spirit can make false prophets succeed (1 Kings 22), then even fulfilled prophecy is not proof of divine origin. A demon could produce a fulfilled prediction to deceive.
Test Two: Theological Orthodoxy (Deuteronomy 13:1–5)
“If a prophet arises and gives you a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder comes true, but he says, ‘Let us follow other gods,’ you must not listen.”
The Problem: This test catches only prophets who explicitly advocate idolatry. The 400 prophets in 1 Kings 22 spoke in the name of the Lord. They did not advocate other gods. Yet they were deceived. A lying spirit can speak perfectly orthodox theology while leading people to destruction. Theological orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.
Think about it. The above text says that a there can be a false prophet who can give signs and wonders.
In fact, they have Jesus say as much here:
“For there shall arise false christs and false prophets and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (Matthew 24:24)
The only thing that makes that prophet false is that he is doing these things either by the power or in the name of another god. This is no objective criteria at all. It puts both on an even playing field.
Test Three: Track Record and Character
The Problem: Ahab knew that Micaiah had a track record of negative prophecies. He still chose to believe the 400. Track record is probabilistic, not certain. And 2 Kings 3 shows that a prophet with an impeccable track record (Elisha) can prophesy a victory that does not occur. If Elisha can be wrong (or overridden by Chemosh), then no prophet’s track record guarantees future accuracy.
Test Four: The Prophet’s Willingness to Suffer
The Problem: Micaiah was willing to die for his message. So were many false prophets in other religions. Martyrdom proves sincerity, not accuracy. A sincerely deceived prophet (like the 400) might also be willing to suffer if he believed his message was from God.
The Theological Consequences
The arguments above are sound, then the following conclusions follow:
1. There is no objective, reliable criterion for distinguishing true prophecy from false in real time.
A person standing at the gate of Samaria with Ahab has no rational basis to choose between Micaiah and the 400 prophets. Both groups speak in the name of the Lord. Both may be sincere. One group is deceived. There is no external test available before the event that resolves the question.
2. The Lord can and does authorize deception.
The text of 1 Kings 22 is unambiguous: the Lord commissions a lying spirit to deceive prophets. This means that any prophet at any time could be the vehicle of divine deception. The reader of the Bible has no guarantee that any given prophetic book was not produced under the influence of a divinely sent lying spirit.
3. Other gods (or the spiritual entities behind them) have real power.
The plain reading of 2 Kings 3 is that Chemosh responded to child sacrifice with military effect against an army blessed by the Lord’s prophet. Whether Chemosh is a god, a demon, or a literary device, the narrative presents a rival deity successfully opposing the Lord’s plan. This undercuts any strong monotheism that claims the Lord alone acts in history. It also supports henotheism which is presented throughout the Bible.
4. Biblical prophecy is not a reliable basis for knowledge about God.
If prophecy can be deceived by divine design, and if rival deities can thwart prophetic predictions, then the prophetic corpus of the Bible cannot be trusted as a secure foundation for theology. The claims of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the minor prophets rest on the same prophetic mechanism that produced the 400 deceived prophets of 1 Kings 22. There is no external verification available to the modern reader that distinguishes true biblical prophets from false ones.
Possible Responses from Believing Scholarship.
Response 1: The Canonical Context
Believing scholars argue that the Bible as a whole provides its own hermeneutic. The lying spirit episode is a judgment on Ahab’s hardness of heart. The Chemosh episode shows the horror of child sacrifice, not Chemosh’s power. When read in the full canon—from Genesis to Revelation—these episodes do not undermine trust but reinforce the sovereignty of the Lord who uses even deception and foreign gods for his purposes.
Prima Qur’an response: This response assumes what it needs to prove—that the canon as a whole is trustworthy. The question at issue is whether the prophetic mechanism itself is reliable. Citing other biblical passages does not solve the problem because those passages come through the same unreliable prophetic mechanism. This is circular reasoning.
Response 2: Divine Accommodation
Some theologians argue that the Bible accommodates itself to ancient Near Eastern ways of thinking. The authors of 1 Kings and 2 Kings believed that other gods existed and that the Lord could use lying spirits.
Prima Qur’an Response: If the Bible accommodates false beliefs (that other gods exist, that the Lord sends lying spirits), then on what basis can any part of the Bible be trusted as accurate? Accommodationism is a slippery slope. If the Bible is wrong about the existence of Chemosh and the mechanism of divine deception, it could be wrong about anything. The reader is left with no objective criterion for deciding which parts are accommodation and which are truth.
Response 3: Existential Trust
Some theologians argue that faith does not rest on objective criteria. Faith is a leap. The absence of certainty is the condition for authentic trust. The objective uncertainty of prophecy is not a bug but a feature.
Prima Qur’an Response: This is an honest attempt at a response but it concedes the argument. If faith requires a leap without objective evidence, then the claim that “the Bible is reliable” is not a rational conclusion but a personal commitment. The skeptic who demands objective grounds for belief is not refuted; they are simply told that faith does not provide what they seek. That is a defensible position on the basis of faith alone, but it abandons any claim to rational demonstration.
Conclusion
The Bible itself provides no objective, reliable criterion for distinguishing true prophecy from false. The lying spirit of 1 Kings 22 demonstrates that sincere prophets speaking in the name of the Lord can be deceived by divine commission. The God of Chemosh in 2 Kings 3 demonstrates that rival deities (or the spiritual powers behind them) can successfully oppose armies blessed by the Lord’s true prophets.
These passages strike at the heart of biblical authority. If the prophetic mechanism is unreliable, then the prophetic books of the Bible are unreliable. If the Bible cannot provide a rational basis for trusting its own prophets, then the God of the Bible cannot be known with certainty through the Bible.
This does not prove that God does not exist. It proves something narrower but still devastating: the Bible does not give its readers a reliable, objective method for knowing that its prophets speak truth rather than a lying spirit. For anyone who demands rational grounds for belief, this is sufficient reason to withhold trust.
May Allah guide the sincere among the Jews and the Christians so that they do not enter the hellfire.
“O People of the Book! Now Our Messenger has come to you, revealing much of what you have hidden of the book and disregarding much. There certainly has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book. through which Allah guides those who seek His pleasure to the ways of peace, brings them out of darkness and into light by His Will, and guides them to the Straight Path. (Qur’an 5:15-16)
﷽
Henotheism is the worship of a single, supreme deity while acknowledging or accepting the existence of other, lesser gods.
Monotheism is the belief in the existence of only one god, or the oneness of God, distinguishing it from polytheism (many gods) and atheism.
The cypher of The Tetragrammaton revealed.
Tetra =4.
Gramma= letter.
Aton (Aten).
The Bible claims that their god used to be called ‘Baal’.
“And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal.’ (Hosea 2:16)
Ba’al (בעל) is the most commonly used in modern Hebrew for husband.
“Eluzai, Jerimoth, Bealiah, Shemariah and Shephatiah the Haruphite…” (1 Chronicles 12:5)
Bealiah which means Jehovah is Baal.
However, because the name Baal had become so associated with the Canaanite deity, there becomes a prohibition that commands Israel to stop using that title for Him altogether . This also proves that Israelites were using the same name for their God prior to this prohibition.
Barnes’ notes on the Bible has the following:
“God says, “so wholly do I hate the name of idols, that on account of the likeness of the word Baal, “my Lord,” I will not be so called even in a right meaning, lest, while she utter the one, she should think on the other, and calling Me her Husband, think on the idol.”
Think of it like this. Maybe there was a woman married to a man named Thomas. This woman received a divorce from Thomas. Now this woman is married to you and your name happens to also be Thomas. So, during intimacy, it is possible that you would not want her to call out your name as it could be awkward.
In the Qur’an Allah (swt) has never once been identified with Baal.
In fact, the two are contrasted and never conflated.
“When he said to his people, “Will you not fear Allah ?”Will you call upon Baal and forsake the Best of Creators.” (Qur’an 37:124-125)
The Bible portrays Jesus as a rebelious son who went away from Elyon (God) and sacrificed to Baals and burned incense to images.
Hosea 11:1-2 in context says:
“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more they were called, the more they went away from me.They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.” (Hosea 11:1-2)
The Qur’an presents clear monotheism.
“Allah! There is no god except Him, the Ever-Living, All-Sustaining.” (Qur’an 2:255)
Say, He Allah is Absolute. That which is independent of all but which all things are dependent upon. He does not bring for like kind nor was he from like kind And there is no equivalent to His being Absolute. (Qur’an 112:1-4)
This powerful surah is absolutely uncompromising.
We need to explain the reasons why we translate the text as we do.
Say, He Allah is Absolute.
We make a crucial distinction that most English translations obscure. Wāḥid appears throughout the Qur’an (e.g., 2:163, 5:73, 14:48) and means “one” in a numerical, countable sense. Aḥad, by contrast, appears in this surah and carries a different weight.
Wāḥid = one as opposed to two or more (quantitative oneness)
Aḥad = absolute, unique, singular without composition or peer (qualitative oneness)
Our translation of Aḥad as “Absolute” is therefore more precisethan “One,” which conflates Aḥad with Wāḥid. The standard “One and Only” tries to bridge this but still leans on number. “Absolute” correctly captures the mode of oneness rather than the count.
On Al-Ṣamad. That which is independent of all but which all things are dependent upon.
Standard translations (“Eternal,” “Absolute,” “Self-Sufficient,” “The Uncaused Cause”) each capture one facet. Our full clause—“That which is independent of all but which all things are dependent upon”—is arguably the most complete English rendering possible. It combines:
Negative theology (not dependent on anything)
Positive theology (all depend on Him)
Causal primacy (uncaused cause)
Implication: This is not a liability but an advantage. It sacrifices brevity (the Arabic Ṣamad is one word) but gains clarity. For a translation intended for study rather than liturgical memorization, this is defensible.
Why we do not render the text as “begets not nor is begotten”. He does not bring for like kind nor was he from like kind.
If Allah came from something else (was begotten): He would share a genus with that something else (both would be “things that originated from a prior cause”).
If something like Him came from Allah (begets): That something would share a genus with Allah (both would be “beings that produce likenesses”).
Either scenario destroys absoluteness. A truly absolute being has no genus. Genus implies shared properties, limitations, and comparability. An absolute being is sui generis in the literal sense: of its own kind.
Therefore, “does not bring for like kind nor was he from like kind” is theologically superior to “begets not nor is begotten” because:
It explicitly targets category membership, not biological process.
It avoids the English word “beget,” which confuses modern readers.
It closes the door on Neoplatonic emanation (where lower realities come from higher ones “like kind” in a chain of being) as well as Christian Trinitarian generation.
Implication: Our translation is a more universal negation of ontological continuity between Allah and creation than the conventional one. It addresses Christianity, Neoplatonism, certain Hindu cosmologies (e.g., prakriti giving birth to purusha-like realities), and any emanationist or filial model.
And there is no equivalent to His being Absolute.
Absoluteness is a maximal property. If two things were both absolute, each would limit the other’s absoluteness (each would fail to be absolute relative to the other). Absoluteness entails uniqueness necessarily, not accidentally.
Our final line—“no equivalent to his being absolute”—thus correctly implies that the property itself cannot be instantiated in any other subject. The property is self-uniquifying.
It is clear that Islam is monotheistic.
This is unlike the bible where someone could become like the God (Elyon) or like the deities in his assembly.
“And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.(Genesis 3:22-23)
“And the ETERNAL God said, “Now that humankind has become likeany of us, knowing good and bad, what if one should stretch out a hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!” (Genesis 3:22) –Source: (https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.3.22)
It is interesting that the Jews at Sefaria have translated the text as the Eternal God was worried that Adam may eat from a tree that would give him the property of living forever. This would make him like ‘any of us’.
Paul being the henotheist that he is says:
“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many; yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.” (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)
“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish: in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.” (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)
Paul concedes that there’s a “god of this world” separate from his god. He acknowledges that there are many gods. He just simply says that for him and his sect, they only worship one god, whom they call, ‘The Father’.
The TNCH or what the Christians call the Old Testament is replete with henotheistic passages. The Children of Israel went through different phases worshipping different gods at different times and even had a massive civil war over the matter.
You will notice when studying that the names of several deities names pop up time and again. These names are often conflated with the various other deities that the Children of Israel worshipped.
Perhaps the most damning evidence is as follows:
“When the Most High gave the nations thier inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel. For the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his alloted inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 32:8-9)
“Masoretic Text; Dead Sea Scrolls (see also Septuagint)sons of God.”
How does the New Revised Standard Version render the reading?
“When the Most High gave the nations thier inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the gods; For the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his alloted inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 32:8-9)
How did the transition from “bene Elohim” (sons of God) to “bene Yisrael” (sons of Israel) occur in Deuteronomy 32:8? The timing remains unknown. Whether this change took place during the intertestamental period or at the time of the text’s standardization around 100 AD — we simply do not know when it happened. But this much is certain: a scribe altered the text. Someone deliberately replaced “sons of God” with “sons of Israel.” The exact date of this change is unknown, but the fact that it occurred is beyond dispute. We know this because the Masoretic Text contains the altered reading, while the Dead Sea Scrolls preserve the original. And the Dead Sea Scrolls predate the Masoretic text by a full millennium. Israel is not even in existence when the nations are divided!
A scribe removed the three letters you see in green and added the two letters you see in red.
What does this mean?
Elyon was to be the god of Jacob and his people. The sons of Elyon. Or the other gods were to be for the other nations. In other words the main God (Elyon) divided Earth up among regional deities.
We see this in the following text:
“Will you not possess whatever Chemosh your god gives you to possess? So whatever the Lord our God takes possession of before us, we will possess.” (Judges 11:24)
It mentions that Chemosh is the god of the Ammonites, just as Israel has their own god.
“You shall have no other gods before/beside me.” (Exodus 20:3)
“You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,” (Exodus 20:5)
“Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” (Exodus 34:14)
“You shall have no other gods before/beside me.” (Deuteronomy 5:7)
These text are not a denial of other gods or deities. In fact, the above text describe this god as a jealous god.
This understanding of jealousy is a complex, often unpleasant emotion stemming from fear, insecurity, or a perceived threat to a valued relationship or status. It arises when someone feels threatened by a rival.
The way the Bible portrays this jealousy its as if the god of the children of Israel is in a genus. Even though this god acknowledges that he is superior there is a sort of pathological jealousy at play here.
“God(Elyon) stands in the congregation of the mighty; he judges among the gods.” (Pslam 82:1)
This verse indicates a superior deity presiding over lesser beings. A god among gods.
The Qur’an never describes Allah as a god among gods. Rather it negates any other deity except him.
Insh’Allah we will come back to (Pslam 82:1)
There is an interesting connection between Moloch and the god that the Children of Israel worshipped.
“Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.” (Genesis 14:18-20)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
Melchizedek is said to be a priest of God Most High, (Elyon). In other words the chief god.
Melchizedek needs to clarify who the (Elyon) Most High is. He is the Creator of heaven and earth.
“The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek'” (Psalm 110:4)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
Notice that this does not identify or equate the priest as Melchizedek but that he would be priest in his order.
“Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.” (Hebrews 7:3)
Whoever wrote the book of Hebrews must have had some access to extra Biblical data about Melchizedek that we do not know about.
What is interesting is the word translated as Melchizedek: Righteous King can easily be translated as Righteous Moloch.
We also have the following interesting text.
“Adonizedek, the king of Jerusalem, heard that Joshua had captured and totally destroyed Ai and had killed its king, just as he had done to Jericho and its king. He also heard that the people of Gibeon had made peace with the Israelites and were living among them. The people of Jerusalem were greatly alarmed at this because Gibeon was as large as any of the cities that had a king; it was larger than Ai, and its men were good fighters. So Adonizedek sent the following message to King Hoham of Hebron, King Piram of Jarmuth, King Japhia of Lachish, and to King Debir of Eglon. (Joshua 10:1-3)
Adonizedek is an interesting name. It means Adon is Zedek. Adon (Aton/Aten) is Righteous.
However, it can also mean that Adon is Zedek. My Lord is Zedek.
(Moloch) is a god satiated by human suffering. In particular the sacrifice of innocent children.
He is a god of holocaust. However, anyone who is a Christian will understand a deity who is satiated through the suffering of children, in particular one of his own.
“A divinity worshipped by the idolatrousIsraelites. The Hebrew pointing Molech does not represent the original pronunciation of the name, any more than the Greek vocalization Moloch found in the LXX and in the Acts (vii, 43). The primitive title of this god was very probably Melech, “king”, the consonants of which came to be combined through derision with the vowels of the word Bosheth, “shame”. As the word Moloch (A.V. Molech) means king, it is difficult in several places of the Old Testament to determine whether it should be considered as the proper name of a deity or as a simple appellative. The passages of the original text in which the name stands probably for that of a god are Lev., xviii, 21; xx, 2-5; III (A. V. I) Kings, xi, 7; IV (II) Kings, xxiii, 10; Isaiah 30:33; 57:9; Jeremiah 32:35. The chief feature of Moloch’s worship among the Jews seems to have been the sacrifice of children, and the usual expression for describing that sacrifice was “to pass through the fire”, a rite carried out after the victims had been put to death. The special centre of such atrocities was just outside of Jerusalem, at a place called Tophet (probably “place of abomination”), in the valley of Geennom. According to III (I) Kings, xi, 7, Solomon erected “a temple” for Moloch “on the hill over against Jerusalem”, and on this account he is at times considered as the monarch who introduced the impious cult into Israel. After the disruption, traces of Moloch worship appear in both Juda and Israel. The custom of causing one’s children to pass through the fire seems to have been general in the Northern Kingdom [IV (II) Kings, xvii, 17; Ezech. xxiii, 37], and it gradually grew in the Southern, encouraged by the royal example of Achaz (2 Kings 16:3) and Manasses [IV (II) Kings, xvi, 6] till it became prevalent in the time of the prophet Jeremias (Jerem. xxxii, 35), when King Josias suppressed the worship of Moloch and defiled Tophet [IV (II) Kings, xxiii, 13 (10)]. It is not improbable that this worship was revived under Joakim and continued until the Babylonian Captivity.”
“Aaron answered them, “Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me.” So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, “These are your gods,[b] Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, “Tomorrow there will be a festival to the Lord.” So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry. Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, ‘These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.’” (Exodus 32:2-8)
Prima Qur’an comments:
Prophet Aaron is claimed to have made an idol in the shape of a calf.
The people also said: These are your gods (plural) that brought you (Israel) out of Egypt.
The god that is speaking to moses reaffirms the above two points. Especially: “These are your gods,Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.”
Notice the translation is not sure if the word should be gods or god. However, it is clarified in what was said to Moses by the god that spoke to him. The people were claiming gods (plural) brought them out of Egypt.
Is it not very odd that it is claimed a prophet and servant of the One True God who witnessed miracles would so quickly go and do something like this in the absence of his brother (Moses)?
No one seems to the object to the idea that gods (not god) brought them out of Egypt.
During the civil war of Israel the following happened.
“After seeking advice, the king made two golden calves. He said to the people, “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” One he set up in Bethel, and the other in Dan. And this thing became a sin; the people came to worship the one at Bethel and went as far as Dan to worship the other.” (1 Kings 12:28-30)
Jewish Rabbis have debates about what type of worship of Molech is acceptable and what is not.
The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 64a):
“HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, OR THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO PENALTY, UNLESS HE DOES BOTH.”
Observation: The rabbis are parsing the precise act that constitutes a capital offense. Both elements are required: (1) delivering to Molech’s priests, and (2) causing the child to pass through fire.
The Gemara Discussion:
“R. Abin said: Our Mishnah is in accordance with the view that Molech worship is not idolatry. For it has been taught, whether to Molech or to any other idol he is liable. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: If to Molech, he is liable; if to another idol, he is not.”
This is striking. Some rabbis consider Molech worship not to be idolatry — or at least different in kind from other idol worship. Why?
“R. Hanina b. Antigonus said: Why did the Torah employ the word Molech? To teach that the same law applies to whatever they proclaimed as their king, even a pebble or a splinter.”
Molech is not necessarily a specific deity — it is any deity to whom one transfers sovereignty (“king”) over oneself. The rabbis are working hard to define the boundary.
The Critical Question the Rabbis Are Avoiding
If a Jew offered his child as a burnt offering to Yahweh, would that be permitted?
The rabbis do not address this directly. But their silence is telling.
Jephthah in Rabbinic Literature:
The Talmud (Ta’anit 4a) and later rabbinic commentary do address Jephthah — and they are highly critical of him. The general rabbinic view is that Jephthah should have sought to annul his vow through a sage, and that his failure to do so resulted in tragedy. Some rabbis even say he was punished for his foolishness (losing parts of his body, dying unnaturally).
However — and this is crucial — the rabbis never say that what Jephthah did was inherently impossible or categorically forbidden. They criticize his failure to seek annulment, not the act of human sacrifice itself. They also note that his daughter (like Isaac) was willing.
The Nakdimon Connection
One of the most revealing texts appears in the Babylonian Talmud (Nedarim 37a) and is cited in the Soncino commentary on Sanhedrin 64a. Rabbi Dr. Freedman, the translator, notes:
“The offering of children to Molech was not regarded as ordinary idolatry, but as a distinct offence. One reason is that it involved the destruction of one’s seed — an act of cruelty which even pagans normally did not practice. Another is that it was sometimes done in the name of the Lord, as in the case of Jephthah.”
Read that again: “It was sometimes done in the name of the Lord, as in the case of Jephthah.”
The rabbis knew that child sacrifice had been performed in Israel in the name of Yahweh. They were not condemning the practice universally — they were trying to regulate it, to distinguish between “legitimate” (Yahwistic) and “illegitimate” (pagan) contexts.
The god of Israel (Yahweh) is apparently satiated by human suffering. In particular the sacrifice of innocent children.
In (2 Samuel 21), David is king over Judah. A famine oppresses the land; King David learns that LORD God is punishing Israel for King Saul’s sin (Saul attacked the Gibeonites in violation of Joshua’s treaty (Joshua 9:15). Therefore, in order to relieve the famine, David must appease the Gibeonites. On negotiation, the Gibeonites demand to be given seven descendants of Saul to be hanged “unto the LORD.” David picks two of Saul’s sons and five of Saul’s grandsons. Coincidentally, the five grandsons are the children of Michal, the woman David had wanted to marry (see 1 Samuel 18:25). David gives these Israelites to the Gibeonites so the Gibeonites can hang them.
“Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David inquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites. And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them: and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah.) Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the LORD? And the Gibeonites said unto him, We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel. And he said, What ye shall say, that will I do for you. And they answered the king, The man that consumed us, and that devised against us that we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel, Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, whom the LORD did choose. And the king said, I will give them. But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of the LORD’s oath that was between them, between David and Jonathan the son of Saul. But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of barley harvest.” Source: (2 Samuel 21:1-11)
Prima Qur’an Comments: The God (Elyon) did not explicitly request the hangings. But The God (Elyon) imposed an insufferable famine on the Israelites, The God (Elyon) named the Gibeonites as the people to be appeased, and the Gibeonites named the penalty. When it was done, The God (Elyon) apparently found the human sacrifice to be satisfactory: the chapter continues with accounts of battles, and the famine is not mentioned further. This sequence — an angry god causes a natural disaster, innocent life is slain to appease the god’s anger, and the hardship ceases — this is the same sequence of events found in the human sacrifice rites of other primitive religions.
The God (Elyon) of the Bible did not stop Jephthah from burning his small daughter if the God (Elyon)gave him victory over his enemies.
“Then the Spirit of the Lord came on Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands. He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon. When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.” “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.” “You may go,” He said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin. (Judges 11:29-39)
Prima Qur’an Comments: Now there is major major copium from Christians and Jews regarding this.
Copium # 1. They try and put a spin that the sacrifice is to dedicate his daughter to the Lord as a virgin (meaning temple service) and Jephthah bemoaned that due this he would never have any descendants. Response: and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering & After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed The emphasis on her being a virgin is so she would be an unblemished sacrificed.
Copium #2. The God (Elyon) commands against sacrificing Children in the Bible.
Response. No, no he doesn’t!
“You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 18:21)
“I will also set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given some of his offspring to Molech, so as to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name.” (Leviticus 20:3)
“You shall not behave thus toward the Lord your God, for every abominable act which the Lord hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.” (Deuteronomy 12:31)
As well as the related practice of passing the children through the fire and not consuming them by the fire:
“There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer.” (Deuteronomy 18:10)
“You shall also say to the sons of Israel: ‘Any man from the sons of Israel or from the aliens sojourning in Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones.” (Leviticus 20:2)
Offering your children up as a burnt offering is not against the Torah teachings of the Jews. Nor was it something unacceptable to God. The offence in question was offering them up to Molech and NOT THE GOD (ELYON) OF ISRAEL!
“For I the Lord your God am a jealous God.” (Daniel 5:9)
This god that they worshipped is not against sacrifice or burnt offerings as we have already shown above. Their god
There is no issue with offering up children as a holocaust (burnt offering) to their god. The issue is doing it to false gods.
“They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molek, though I never commanded—nor did it enter my mind—that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.” (Jeremiah 32:35)
Because the Elyon, The High God of the Bible is jealous.
Did we forget?
“After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” (Genesis 22:1-2)
The Angel of the Lord as Satan and one of the gods among gods in the Bible.
In the Hebrew Bible, ha-satan (הַשָּׂטָן) is not a proper name but a title: “the Adversary” or “the Accuser” . This figure appears in the divine council — the assembly of elohim (divine beings) over which Elyon presides as supreme. Ha-Satan is not a rival god or a fallen angel — he is a subordinate being within Elyon’s administration. As one scholar puts it: “The Satan is a member of the divine council, serving as a sort of prosecutor or royal spy” (Peggy L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven).
“I was further shown Joshua, the high priest, standing before the angel of GOD, and the Accuser (Satan) standing at his right to accuse him. But [the angel of] GOD said to the Accuser (Satan), “GOD rebukes you, O Accuser; GOD who has chosen Jerusalem rebukes you! For this is a brand plucked from the fire.”
Here you have Ha-Satan standing at the right hand of the Angel of the LORD to accuse Joshua the high priest. Elyon (the Most High God) rebukes Ha-Satan.
“One day the divine beings presented themselves before GOD. The Adversary came along with them to present himself before GOD. GOD said to the Adversary, “Where have you been?” The Adversary answered GOD, “I have been roaming all over the earth.” GOD said to the Adversary, “Have you noticed My servant Job? There is no one like him on earth, a blameless and upright man who fears God and shuns evil. He still keeps his integrity; so you have incited Me against him to destroy him for no good reason. The Adversary answered GOD, “Skin for skin—all that the man has he will give up for his life. But lay a hand on his bones and his flesh, and he will surely blaspheme You to Your face.” So GOD said to the Adversary, “See, he is in your power; only spare his life.”The Adversary departed from GOD’s presence and inflicted a severe inflammation on Job from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.”
Here you have Ha-Satan appearing among the bene ha-elohim (sons of God) and acting as a prosecuting attorney, testing Job’s righteousness with Elyon’s permission. He is not an enemy of Elyon but a member of His court.
The Angel of the LORD as a Satan in Numbers 22
This is a fascinating and often overlooked passage.
The Narrative: Balaam is hired by Balak of Moab to curse Israel. He consults God (Elyon) who tells him not to go. Balak sends more prestigious messengers; Balaam asks again; God (Elyon)permits him to go but with conditions. On the way:
“But God’s anger was kindled because he went, and the Angel of the LORD stationed himself in the road as an adversary (satan) against him.” (Numbers 22:22)
Analysis:
The Hebrew word used for “adversary” is precisely לְשָׂטָן (l’satan) — “as a satan.”
The Angel of the LORD — generally understood as a manifestation of God (Elyon) Himself (since the Angel speaks as God and is worshipped as God elsewhere) — functions as an obstructor or adversary to Balaam.
This same Angel later permits Balaam to continue (Numbers 22:35).
What this means: God (Elyon)through His Angel) acts as both a guide and an adversary. The same being who permits Balaam to go also stands in his way as a satan. This shows that the role of “adversary” is not a separate being but a function that even God(Elyon) can perform.
As one commentary notes: “The Angel of the LORD acts as Balaam’s ‘adversary’ (satan)… This is the only place in the Old Testament where the Angel of the LORD is explicitly called a satan” (Gordon Wenham, Numbers).
“O Lord, you have deceived me, and I was deceived; you are stronger than I, and you have prevailed.” (Jeremiah 20:7)
Henotheism is the worship of one primary deity while accepting the existence of other gods within a pantheon. It is sort of a pantheon. As a middle ground between polytheism and monotheism, it allows followers to focus devotion on a single “king god”—such as Zeus, Odin, or in some forms of Hinduism—while recognizing other divine beings.
This is why we can have text like the following:
Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” (2 Samuel 24:1)
“Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.” (1 Chronicles 21:1)
This would seem to be a contradiction but when we realize that they are basically one and the same it makes sense from a henotheistic worldview.
The biblical divine council — with its bene ha-elohim, ha-satan as prosecutor, and the Angel of the LORD as a distinct yet divine figure — is not compatible with Islamic tawhid (radical monotheism). Whether the figure in question is called Baal, Molech, Yahweh, or Ha-Satan, the Qur’an would reject any theology that places other divine beings beside Allah.
Qur’an Surah 112 has been shown to absolutely demolish this framework.
Yahweh seems to be a sort of tribal war deity or war angel as presented in the TNCH. The part of the Bible the Christians call: ‘The Old Testament.’
The term Tzva’ot refers to armies or hosts. (Hebrew: Yahweh Tzva’ot) is a divine title in the Bible appearing over 200 times, primarily in the Old Testament, designating Yahweh as the god over all heavenly and earthly armies.
“Yahweh of Armies is with us. The God of Jacob is our refuge. “ (Pslam 46:7)
“Each year Elkanah would travel to Shiloh to worship and sacrifice to the LORD of Heaven’s Armies at the Tabernacle. The priests of the LORD at that time were the two sons of Eli—Hophni and Phinehas.” (1 Samuel 1:3)
“The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.” (Exodus 15:3)
You even have henotheistic views put in the mouth of the One True God’s Prophets!
“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God (τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεόν), and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (John 17:3)
Here he could have simply said “only God.” By adding “true” (ἀληθινός), he leaves open the possibility that other beings exist who could be called “gods” (elohim) — but they are not the true God.
The Jehovah’s Witness have translated John 1:1 as:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1)
“Who among the gods is like you, Lord?” (Exodus 15:11)
“For the Lord is the great God, the great King above all gods.” (Pslam 95:3)
“All who worship images are put to shame, those who boast in idols—Worship him, all you gods!” (Psalm 97:7)
“For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.” (Deuteronomy 10:17)
This is far from monotheism. This is far from what is presented in the Qur’an.
Is it little wonder we those socities that succumb to these beliefs ridden with demonic forces? Even the innocent among them they have no idea what they are even worshipping! May Allah Guide these people to the truth before the burn in hellfire.
Prima Quran 