Tag Archives: Ibadi

May 3, 2026 · 4:08 pm

Fighting a Muslim is Kufr. The Ibadi Doctrine of kufr ni’mah in regard to the companions

“And whoever kills a believer intentionally, their reward will be Hell—where they will stay indefinitely.Allah will be displeased with them, condemn them, and will prepare for them a tremendous punishment.” (Qur’an 4:93)

﷽

The following article is a translation of the wonderful presentation by the respected Shaykh

In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.

Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and prayers and peace be upon the Seal of the Prophets and Messengers, our master Muhammed, and upon his family and his righteous, guided companions. To proceed:

Peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you.

Introduction: The Allegations Answered Once and For All.

My brothers, in this article we continue responding to a persistent allegation—that the Ibadis declare the Companions to be disbelievers, that we excommunicate them from Islam. This accusation is repeated endlessly by those who either misunderstand our creed or deliberately misrepresent it.

As we have said before, this attack against the Ibadis is the result of these people’s ignorance regarding the principle of loyalty and disavowal (al-walāyah wa’l-barā’ah) among the Ibadis. Likewise, these people are trying to conceal what they themselves call the faults of some of the Companions—namely, the events that occurred during the civil strife (fitnah). These events are what led those scholars to declare disavowal from some of the Companions.

These people are not only ignorant of the principle of loyalty and disavowal, but they are also trying to conceal and avoid discussing these events.

When these people throw this accusation at the Ibadis, they simply say directly: “The Ibadis declare the Companions disbelievers,” without discussing the reasons. There are reasons that led those scholars to declare disavowal regarding those Companions.

What Our Opponents Say: Documenting the Accusation

Let us document exactly what our opponents claim. Listen carefully to their own words:

“Look, regardless of my disagreement with them, they declare ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān to be a disbeliever, and they declare ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, and Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī, and Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī, and a group of the Prophet’s Companions to be disbelievers. Yet despite that, they do not openly state it. Rather, you find this in their major books. You find it in their books. They also have an element of taqiyyah (dissimulation). Even so, I do not know whether this expression will be understood properly or not, but I respect in them the absence of sectarianism. This is their creed: they declare the Prophet’s Companions disbelievers. This is their creed: they declare the Prophet’s Companions disbelievers. Yes, we declare Muʿāwiyah a disbeliever, but we still narrate from him. We declare Marwān a disbeliever, but we still narrate from him. We declare ʿUthmān a disbeliever, but we still narrate from him. We declare ʿAlī and al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn disbelievers, but we still narrate from al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn. This is the Ibadi belief.”

Another says:

“Therefore we are not surprised by this stance, for the position of the early Ibadis regarding the Companions—especially the two caliphs—is contrary to the methodology of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamāʿah. It included criticism, takfīr, and false disavowal from the best of this nation. As for the other two Rightly Guided Caliphs, ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān and ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, may Allah be pleased with them, the Khawārij, including the Ibadis, remained deeply astray concerning them, attributing to them things from which Allah declared them innocent, and speaking grievously against them.”

And another:

“They called themselves the people of truth and uprightness, but they are the people of falsehood and misguidance. Hatred toward Ahl al-Sunnah. Let me add even more: they declare ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib and ʿUthmān disbelievers—and also al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, of course. As for Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān, he exited Islam through its widest gates.”

As you have heard, these people claim that the Ibadis declare ʿUthmān, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, al-Ḥasan, al-Ḥusayn, and a group of the Prophet’s Companions to be disbelievers. Then they say that the Ibadis do not openly state this and that they practice a kind of taqiyyah. They say this is our creed.

The Reality: No Taqiyyah, No Doctrine of Takfīr

The reality is that this is not our creed, nor is there any taqiyyah. Rather, it is their ignorance. They are ignorant of the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension (wuqūf) among the Ibadis.

One of these opponents commented on an interview with one of our shaykhs. The interviewer asked the shaykh about Sayyidunā Abū Bakr and Sayyidunā ʿUmar, then afterwards about Sayyidunā ʿUthmān. They claim that he stuttered. The reality is that the shaykh did not stutter. Rather, he was avoiding reopening the fitnah and the events that occurred among the Companions. He did not want to stir up these matters, so he avoided them. Yet they claim he hesitated and faltered.

The shaykh did not hesitate or stutter. He answered. The problem is not with the shaykh—the problem is with them. They are ignorant of the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension. Anyone who understands this doctrine would know that the shaykh did answer the question.

The shaykh did not want to bring out what is found in their own books regarding the events that occurred among the Companions. He was avoiding this issue.

The shaykh said—according to the meaning of his words—that there were those who had one opinion and others who had another opinion. This is the reality. The issue returns to the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension. There are people with one opinion and others with another. That is the answer. The shaykh cannot specify which of those opinions is correct because the matter returns to our doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension.

They want the shaykh simply to say: “Disbeliever” or “not a disbeliever.” But the matter is not that simple. This black-and-white approach belongs to them. The shaykh is not obligated to adopt their methodology, nor are the Ibadis obligated to adopt their methodology in these issues. We Ibadis have our own methodology and doctrine: the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension.

Now, these people claim that we declare ʿUthmān, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, al-Ḥasan, al-Ḥusayn, and a group of the Prophet’s Companions to be disbelievers. Then they say we do not openly state it and that we practice taqiyyah. Then they say this is the creed of the Ibadis.

The reality is that there is neither taqiyyah nor a doctrine of declaring the Companions disbelievers. Declaring the Companions disbelievers is not a doctrine among the Ibadis. We do not have a chapter in our creed titled: “The Ibadi doctrine of declaring the Companions disbelievers.” This is their ignorance.

If we focus on their words and these responses and clips they produced, we find them constantly repeating the term takfīr, the term kufr. They say: “They declared disbelief,” “acts of disbelief,” “so-and-so is a disbeliever.”

One of them even distorted the shaykh’s words in that interview, lied, and played with expressions. Anyone who watches the interview and his commentary will find that he distorted the shaykh’s words and attributed to him statements he never made. The shaykh never uttered the term takfīr. Yet this man attributes to the Ibadis things they never said.

Did the Ibadis Invent the Term Kufr?

Now, does this term—takfīr—have any basis? Did the Ibadis invent it out of thin air, as they claim, or does it have a basis in religion?

Let us establish this. Let us speak and cite from the books of these people themselves. We will not use Ibadi sources. Rather, we will prove everything we say from the sources of these people.

The Prophetic Evidence

In Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, the most authentic book after the Qur’an according to Ahl al-Sunnah, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:

“Do not revert after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7077)

And in another narration:

“Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:65)

The Messenger is addressing whom here? He is addressing the Companions.

The Prophet ﷺ also said:

“Insulting a Muslim is wickedness, and fighting him is disbelief.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:48)

This is another ḥadīth proving the usage of the term kufr for actions committed by Muslims against other Muslims.

What Sunni Scholars Say About this Kufr

Now let us see what these people’s own scholars say regarding these ḥadīths and the term kufr.

Muhammed ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn

Muhammed ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn, one of the most revered contemporary Sunni scholars, says in his commentary on Riyāḍ al-Ṣāliḥīn, volume 4, page 70:

“Then the Prophet ﷺ said: ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.’ … This indicates that believers fighting one another is kufr.”

Notice: He says “believers fighting one another is kufr.” He does not say the fighters have left Islam. He affirms they are believers, yet their fighting is kufr.

However, you know what has happened to soften this in some English translations? They translate it as: “This indicates that believers fighting one constitutes some disbelief.”

Source: (https://shamela.ws/book/9260/1936) verify and translate into English.

Muhammed Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī

In Al-Thamar al-Mustatāb fī Fiqh al-Sunnah wa al-Kitāb, page 53, al-Albānī says:

“Know that many ḥadīths have come attributing kufr to those who commit major sins … among them: ‘Insulting a Muslim is wickedness and fighting him is kufr’… and ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.’ All these ḥadīths are authentic. So if we know that kufr has levels (darajāt), and that some forms do not eternally condemn a person to Hell, then there is no need for reinterpretation.”

Al-Albānī explicitly affirms three critical points:

Kufr has levels (darajāt).
Some forms of kufr do not eternally condemn a person to Hell.
Therefore, there is no need to reinterpret these ḥadīths away—they mean what they say, but kufr does not always mean apostasy.

Source: (https://shamela.ws/book/306/54) verify and translate into English.

Ibn Taymiyyah

In Kitāb al-Īmān, page 279, Ibn Taymiyyah says:

“Based on this principle, a person may possess a branch of disbelief while also possessing faith. Thus the Prophet ﷺ named many sins as kufr, though the person committing them may still have more than an atom’s weight of faith and therefore not remain eternally in Hell. Such as his statement: ‘Insulting a Muslim is wickedness and fighting him is kufr,’ and ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.’ This is widespread from the Prophet ﷺ in authentic narrations.”

Then he says:

“He called those who strike one another’s necks unjustly ‘disbelievers.’”

And he says this is “kufr less than kufr,” as some Companions said.

This is extraordinary. Ibn Taymiyyah—the scholar revered by many of our opponents—explicitly affirms:

A person can have “a branch of disbelief” while still possessing faith.
The Prophet called certain sins kufr.
This kufr does not necessarily mean eternal damnation.
Some Companions themselves called this “kufr less than kufr.”

This is precisely the Ibadi position.

Source: (https://shamela.ws/book/7564/272) verify and translate into English.

Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh

In Sharḥ al-ʿAqīdah al-Ṭaḥāwiyyah, volume 2, pages 851–852, Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh says:

“If hatred is for worldly reasons only, then this is lesser disbelief and does not reach major disbelief. Hence the Prophet ﷺ said: ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.’”

Then on page 852 he says:

“The fact that some Companions fought others involves entering into traits of disbelief … therefore he said: ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers.’”

He then says this disbelief may be lesser or greater depending on the nature of the hatred.

Sources: (

Ibn Taymiyyah on the Authenticity of These Ḥadīths

In Minhāj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah, volume 4, pages 499–500, Ibn Taymiyyah is responding to the Rāfiḍah (Shīʿa). In this section he imagines an argument from the Nawāṣib against the Rāfiḍah. He says:

“If the Nawāṣib said to you Rāfiḍah: ‘ʿAlī permitted the blood of Muslims and fought them without the command of Allah and His Messenger, merely for leadership,’ and then cited the Prophet’s words ‘Fighting him is kufr’ and ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another,’ then ʿAlī would thereby be a disbeliever…”

Then Ibn Taymiyyah says:

“Your argument, O Rāfiḍah, would not be stronger than theirs, because the ḥadīths they used are authentic.”

Ibn Taymiyyah affirms that these ḥadīths containing the term kufr are authentic. He does not deny their application to Muslims who fight Muslims.

Sources: (https://shamela.ws/book/927/2203) & (https://shamela.ws/book/927/2204) verify and translate into English.

Al-Dhahabī

In his book on trustworthy narrators, al-Dhahabī says on page 23:

“If we opened this door for ourselves, many Companions, Followers, and imams would enter into it. Some Companions declared others disbelievers based on interpretation.”

Al-Dhahabī affirms takfīr occurring among the Companions themselves—based on interpretive ijtihād, not because the target of takfīr had actually left Islam.

Source: (https://shamela.ws/book/5817/1#p1)

Imam al-Nawawī

Imam al-Nawawī said in his commentary on Sahih Muslim: “To insult a Muslim without right is forbidden by the consensus of the Ummah, and the one who does it is a fāsiq (morally corrupt), as the Prophet (peace be upon him) informed. As for fighting him without right, it does not constitute kufr that expels one from the religion according to Ahl al-Haqq, unless one deems it lawful. Now that this is established, there are several interpretations of the hadith: First — it applies to the one who deems such acts lawful. Second — it is meant as ingratitude for blessings and brotherhood in Islam, not as disbelief in Allah. Third — it leads to disbelief due to its evil consequences. Fourth — it resembles the actions of disbelievers.”

First — it applies to the one who deems such acts lawful.

Their interpretation is if you kill a fellow a Muslim but you don’t believe that it is lawful to do so then it is not kufr.

We wonder if the companions who killed each other thought that what they were doing was lawful or unlawful?

If it was unlawful then they participated in the unlawful in masse.

Second — it is meant as ingratitude for blessings and brotherhood in Islam, not as disbelief in Allah. Hence, kufr ni’ama. Welcome to the Ibadi view.

Third — it leads to disbelief due to its evil consequences. Fourth — it resembles the actions of disbelievers.

Source: (https://www.islamweb.net/ar/library/content/53/242) verify and translate into English.

Summary of Sunni Scholarly Consensus on the above matter.

Scholar	Affirmation
Ibn Taymiyyah	Kufr has levels; “kufr less than kufr” exists; a person can have a branch of kufr while still having faith.
Al-Dhahabī	Some Companions declared other Companions disbelievers based on interpretation (ta’wīl).
Al-ʿUthaymīn	Believers fighting one another is kufr—but they remain believers.
Al-Albānī	Kufr has levels (darajāt); some forms do not eternally condemn to Hell.
Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh	Lesser disbelief exists and does not reach major disbelief.
al-Nawawī	Meant as ingratitude for blessings and brotherhood in Islam, not as disbelief in Allah

The Sunni Understanding of Qur’anic Reconciliation vindicates the Ibadis

Now we return to the Qur’anic verse that seals this matter.

The Sunnis translate the verse as:

“And if two groups of the believers fight each other…” (Qur’an 49:9)

Allah did not say: “If two groups, one of which has left Islam…” He said: “of the believers.”

Therefore:

Statement	Implication
Allah calls fighting groups believers	They have not left the millah of Islam.
The Prophet calls fighting a Muslim kufr	The act is kufr in the lesser sense.
Conclusion	Kufr in the ḥadīth and in Ibadi usage does not mean expulsion from Islam.

This term—kufr—was not invented by the Ibadis out of thin air or from their own pockets. These scholars did not invent it. Rather, this term is established and has a basis in the explicit words of the Prophet ﷺ and the explicit text of the Qur’an.

The Prophet said: “Insulting a Muslim is wickedness and fighting him is kufr.” And he also said: “Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.”

The question is: did the Companions strike one another’s necks? No rational person can deny that this happened during the fitnah.

The Ibadi Doctrinal Framework: Walāyah, Barā’ah, and Wuqūf

Now that we have established the legitimacy of the term kufr in its lesser sense, let us explain the actual Ibadi doctrine—the framework our opponents either do not understand or deliberately misrepresent.

The issues related to the stance on historical events (the Great Fitnah) are among the most intricate topics in Ibadi theology, and they have witnessed significant methodological development while preserving their theoretical foundations.

First: The Three Doctrinal Concepts

These concepts represent a “system of analogy” that defines a Muslim’s relationship with others based on behavior and actions:

Walāyah (Loyalty): This is love for the sake of Allah, and it is obligatory for every Muslim whose outward conduct is in accordance with Allah’s commands. It is of two types: general walāyah (for all believers) and specific walāyah (for those known for their righteousness).

Barā’ah (Disavowal): This is hatred for the sake of Allah, and it is obligatory for anyone who openly commits a major sin, persists in a wrong, or introduces something into the religion that contradicts its fundamental principles (from the perspective of the school of thought). It is not a “curse” or “insult,” but rather a severing of religious allegiance from the action or innovation.

Wuqūf (Suspension): This refers to refraining from judging someone’s loyalty or innocence due to unclear evidence, conflicting reports, or because the person was unaware of the events and not legally obligated to pass judgment on them.

A Detailed Overview of Positions Throughout the Ages

Stage 1: Historical Intensity (1st–4th centuries AH)

Prevailing Position: Innocence of the events and those responsible for them. Early Ibadis did not hold the Companions (as a whole) responsible for the fitnah in a way that condemned them.

Estimated Percentage: 95% innocence. The overwhelming majority of early Ibadi scholars maintained that the Companions (as a whole) were not to be held blameworthy for the civil strife.

Even if we granted a theoretical 5% Allowance for disavowal.The remaining 5% allows for the possibility that some Companions, as human beings, may have committed acts prior to the fitnah that deserved punishment under the Qur’an and Sunnah. This is not a blanket condemnation of any Companion, nor is it specific to the events of the fitnah. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that Companions—like all humans—were not infallible (ma’sūm) and could commit individual sins for which the Qur’an and Sunnah prescribe accountability. This is not unique to Ibadis; Sunni scholars also acknowledge that Companions were not infallible and could commit sins, though they are generally considered righteous overall.

Examples: What is mentioned in the letters of Imam Jābir ibn Zayd (although his letters are characterized by piety) and what biographers have reported about the position of the people of Nahrawān towards ʿUthmān (due to the issue of protected areas and positions) and towards ʿAlī (due to the arbitration).

Logic: The position was directly political and doctrinal. Early Ibadis considered certain actions during the fitnah to be innovations, but they did not translate that into condemning the Companions as individuals. Rather, their barā’ah (disavowal) was directed at the actions and innovations, not at the persons as disbelievers or as having left the millah of Islam.

Stage 2: Establishing and Remaining Silent (5th–13th centuries AH)

Prevailing Stance: Expressions of “remaining silent” began to appear explicitly.

Estimated Ratio: 50% disavowal (in educational texts) and 50% wuqūf (in practical application).

A well-known saying: Imam Abū Saʿīd al-Kadāmī (one of the leading scholars of the 4th century AH) said: “We do not disavow ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib or ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān unless we have definitive proof that necessitates it, and silence is safer.”

Logic: The principle of “scholarly integrity” began to emerge, whereby statements of disavowal were transmitted as part of the heritage, but remaining silent was practiced out of respect for the status of these Companions.

Contemporary Phase (14th century AH – Present Day)

Prevailing Stance: Remaining silent and accepting (the principle of good faith).

Estimated Percentage: 90% wuqūf and acceptance, 10% disavowal (historical transmission only).

Statements of Scholars:

Shaykh Nūr al-Dīn al-Sālimī: Despite his adherence to the fundamentals, he opened the door to wuqūf for those who were unaware of the fitnah, saying: “You may abstain from judgment regarding the people of the qiblah, for Allah will not question you about what they did.”

His Eminence Shaykh Aḥmad bin Ḥamad al-Khalīlī (Grand Mufti of Oman): He always emphasizes the unity of the Ummah and purity of heart. In his lessons and writings, he prays for mercy upon all the Companions and affirms that historical differences should not divide Muslims today.

The Principle of Purity of Heart: This is the principle adopted by the Ibadi school today, meaning that the contemporary Muslim is not obligated to investigate the bloodshed of the Companions, and it is safer for him to meet Allah with a pure heart towards everyone.

Why Do Classical Texts Continue to Contain Statements of Disavowal?

The continued presence of these statements in books does not necessarily mean they are being implemented today. Rather, it stems from methodological reasons:

Scholarly Integrity: Ibadi scholars consider the books of the early scholars an inheritance that should not be censored or deleted. Instead, it should be transmitted as is, with explanations within its historical context.
Preserving Historical Memory: Transmitting these statements aims to explain why the Ibadis differed from others initially (the political and legal reasons for the revival), not to incite hatred.
Distinguishing Between “Statement” and “Religious Practice”: The statement of disavowal exists “intellectually” in the books as an interpretation by earlier scholars, but wuqūf and acceptance are what are practiced “religiously” and as acts of worship today.

Should One Take a Doctrinal Stance Regarding the People of Nahrawān?

This is a fundamental question within the school of thought, and the answer can be summarized as follows:

The Ibadi position on their predecessors: The Ibadis believe that the people of Nahrawān were “people of righteousness” and that their disavowal of ʿUthmān and ʿAlī was based on a legitimate interpretation of Islamic law, which they considered justified in their time, to protect the core of the faith (as they perceived it).

Are you obligated to disavow them as they did? No. The principle among the Ibadis is: “There is no blame on one who remains neutral.” A contemporary Muslim who refrains from judging ʿUthmān and ʿAlī, while simultaneously respecting the people of Nahrawān as scholars and predecessors, is not considered an “innovator” or “outside the school.”

Conclusion of the Doctrinal Section

There is no religious obligation within the Ibadi school that compels you to disavow any of the Companions today. The required doctrinal stance is loyalty to the believers and hatred of oppressors in general. However, regarding specific historical events, the best and safest course is to remain neutral. (Wuqūf)

Accordingly, the Ibadi approach today is one of unity, not division, whereby the Companions (including ʿUthmān and ʿAlī) are treated with respect as a general virtue, while the interpretations of the early scholars who took strong stances are also respected, and this is considered part of the history of scholarly interpretation that does not preclude present-day harmony.

Kufr in the Ibadi School Does Not Expel from the Millah

Let us state this as clearly as possible:

Kufr in the Ibadi school is not something that takes one out of the millah of Islam.

This is the fundamental distinction that our opponents either cannot grasp or deliberately conceal.

When early Ibadi scholars used the term kufr regarding certain actions during the fitnah, they did not mean:

That the person had left the millah of Islam.
That their shahādah was invalidated.
That they were forever condemned to Hell.

Rather, they meant precisely what Ibn Taymiyyah meant when he wrote “a person may possess a branch of disbelief while also possessing faith” and “kufr less than kufr.” They meant what al-Albānī meant when he wrote “kufr has levels, and some forms do not eternally condemn a person to Hell.”

They meant that the action—fighting a fellow Muslim unjustly, or introducing innovation into the religion—is an act of kufr in the lesser sense: a grave violation that necessitates barā’ah (disavowal) but not the complete negation of faith.

Even in how we understand the word كفر or kufr in Arabic. This ensures us that we have a creed that is based upon the Qur’an, the primary source of Islam, the revelation Allah sent to his Blessed Prophet (saw). Allah (swt) never defined كفر as exit from the religion of Islam. This is concept is theologically superimposed upon the word. The proof of this is evident. In light of the clear text from the Prophetic Sunnah, Sunni scholars have provided an array of understandings and levels concering the word.

Why the Accusation of Taqiyyah for the Ibadi Is False

Our opponents also claim that we, the Ibadis practice taqiyyah—that we conceal our “true” belief that the Companions are disbelievers.

This is false for several reasons:

There is no concealment. We are explaining our doctrine openly in this very article, citing our sources and demonstrating our distinctions.
Wuqūf is not taqiyyah. Taqiyyah is concealing one’s true belief out of fear of harm. Wuqūf is a principled theological position: suspending judgment when evidence is unclear or when the matter does not affect one’s own religious obligation.
The accusation is ironic. Our opponents accuse us of taqiyyah while ignoring that we openly state: “We do not declare the Companions disbelievers in the sense of expulsion from Islam.” What are we supposedly concealing?
The burden of proof is on them. They claim we secretly believe something. But they provide no evidence—only misinterpretation of early texts that they refuse to read in light of their own understanding of Qur’an (49:9) and the distinction between lesser and major kufr.

The Rhetorical Question Our Opponents Cannot Answer

Let us conclude with a question for those who accuse the Ibadis of excommunicating the Companions:

According to their own undersatnding of Qur’an 49:9, when two groups of believers fight each other, are they still believers or not?

They cannot say “no” without contradicting the Qur’an.

And according to your own ḥadīth in Bukhārī and Muslim, fighting a Muslim is kufr. So how do you reconcile the Qur’an calling fighting believers ‘believers’ and the ḥadīth calling fighting ‘kufr’?

The only possible reconciliation is that kufr here does not mean apostasy. It means a lesser kufr, a grave sin, an act of major transgression—but not expulsion from the millah of Islam.

That is exactly what we Ibadis have been saying all along.

This is not meant as a ‘gotcha’ for the Sunnis, but a call for sincere reflection, bridge-building, and moving forward as an Ummah

Final Summary

Accusation	Reality
“Ibadis declare Companions to be disbelievers (apostates).”	Ibadis use kufr in the lesser sense (kufr ni’ma), as affirmed by Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Albānī, al-ʿUthaymīn, and others.
“Ibadis declare companions to be mushrik (polytheist).”	Ibadis have not declared a single companion to be a mushrik.
“Ibadis practice taqiyyah to hide their true beliefs.”	There is no concealment. Wuqūf (suspension) is a principled theological position, not taqiyyah.
“Ibadis invented the term kufr for Muslims.”	The term comes from how Allah defined it in the Qur’an.
“Ibadis are Khawārij who excommunicate Muslims.”	Ibadis distinguish themselves from extremist Khawārij precisely by affirming that kufr does not always entail expulsion from the millah.
“Contemporary Ibadis still declare the Companions disbelievers.”	The contemporary Ibadi position is overwhelmingly wuqūf and acceptance, with scholars praying for mercy upon all Companions.

Conclusion and Call for Fairness

We Ibadis do not ask anyone to agree with our historical interpretations. We do not ask anyone to adopt our doctrine of barā’ah. What we ask for is fairness—that we be judged by what we actually believe, not by the distorted caricature our opponents present.

We ask that our accusers to read their own understasnding of Qur’an (49:9) and the authentic ḥadīth. We ask that they read their own scholars—Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Dhahabī, al-ʿUthaymīn, al-Albānī—who affirm the very distinctions we make..

We ask that they stop accusing us of taqiyyah when we are explaining our doctrine openly.

If they insist that our definition of kufr means apostasy, they bear the burden of proof is upon the accuser—not us.

“And give full measure when you measure, and weigh with an even balance. That is the best [way] and best in result.” (Qur’an 17:35)

You may also wish to read the following:

Kufr An-Ni’mah & Kufr Ash-Shirk: According to the Qur’an and Sunnah

In Ibadi theology, a Wali of Allah can sin. One who has true spiritual guardianship can be killed.

Walayah & Bara’ah & Wuqoof or Association & Shunning and Pausing in the Ibadi school

al-walāya (allegiance) and al-barā’a (disavowal) with the companions and other matters.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as allah, aqidah, baraah, disavowal, fiqh, hadith, Ibadi, ibadi-islam, ingratitude, Islam, jurisprudence, kitman, kufr, kufr-niamah, loyalty, pausing, quran, religion, sunnah, suspension, taqiyya, theology, walyah, wuquf

May 2, 2026 · 8:23 am

Shi’i ask the Ibadi questions on Siffin and Nahrawn.

“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:

Dr. Mahmoud Ismail: The Khawarij – Victims of History. Ali initially agreed with the Khawarij.

Ex 12er Shi’i sister has questions about Siffin.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as 12er, allah, history, Ibadi, ibadi-school, imami, Islam, nahrawan, quran, religion, shia, siffin, zaidi, zaydi

April 29, 2026 · 1:21 pm

What are the signs that we have faith?

“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.

May Allah (swt) grant us sincerity.

May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah.

May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as allah, emaan, faith, hadith, Ibadi, ibadi-school, Islam, manifestation-of-faith, quran, religion, resolute-faith

April 27, 2026 · 11:22 pm

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

“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).

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari/65/366)

In the Tasfir of Ibn Kathir we find:

(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.

Source: (https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/49.2)

You may also be interested in reading the following:

What about all those hadith that promise a Muslim paradise based upon testimony alone?

I’ll go to hell for a little while and then enter heaven. Think again!

The hadith of the card. Get out of hell free card!

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as ahl-haqq, allah, damnation, hadith, hellfire, Ibadi, ibadi-school, Islam, istiqama, quran, religion, salvation, steadfastness, tawhid

April 26, 2026 · 1:09 pm

The Question of Slavery & Milk Al Yamin In Islam.

“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.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:1744b)

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.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:1661c)

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 Aymanukum from 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.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2583)

Narrated Abu Musa:

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.”

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2544

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 the atonement due from him is to set him free.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/abudawud:5168)

Narrated Abu Huraira:

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.’ “

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2227)

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.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:2249b)

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “You should listen to and obey, your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7142)

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 of Ma-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.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/abudawud:5168)

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’an comments:

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’an comments:

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:

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.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/abudawud:5116)

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.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as allah, fiqh, freedom, hadith, Ibadi, ibadi-school, Islam, jurisprudence, milk-al-yamin, quran, raqib, religion, slavery, sunnah

April 24, 2026 · 12:11 am

Tashahhud in the Ibadi school.

“Indeed, Allah showers His blessings upon the Prophet, and His angels pray for him. O believers! Invoke Allah’s blessings upon him, and salute him with worthy greetings of peace.” (Qur’an 33:56)

﷽

This article aims to tell the reader about the Tashahhud in the Ibadi school as well as the proper meaning about Āl Ibrahim and Āl Muhammed (peace be upon them both)

The Āl in the Tashahhud is a reference to the people of Ibrahim (as) and the people of Muhammed (saw). This is inclusive of the familes but is not exclusive to them. This is important.

The Āl cannot be excluisve to the families for the following reason:

“Ibrāhīm’s plea for his father’s forgiveness was only because of a promise he had made. But when it became clear that his father was an enemy of Allah, he disassociated from him. Indeed, Ibrāhīm was tender-hearted and forbearing.” (Qur’an 9:114)

Likewise the uncle of the Blessed Prophet (saw), Abu Lahab was condemned and destined for Hellfire, as in the Qurān.

“”May the hands of Abu Lahab perish, and he perish! Neither his wealth nor gains will benefit him.
He will burn in a flaming fire, and his wife, the carrier of kindling around her neck will be a rope palm fibre.” (Qur’an 111:1-5)

As regard the status of the uncle Abu Talib and Parents of the Blessed Prophet (saw) their status is disputed.

You may see our article here:

Are The Prophets Parents In Hell? – Dr Shaykh Abdullah al-Mu’ammari.

Thus The Āl is a reference to the followers of the Blessed Prophets Ibrahim (as) and Muhammed (saw).

Āl simply means people. Āl Kitab the People of the Book. Not the Family of the Book.

“And then he went to his people, swaggering [in pride]. (Qur’an 75:33)

Another example:

“The Fire, they are exposed to it morning and evening. And the Day the Hour appears [it will be said], “Make the people of Pharaoh (ala fir’awna) enter the severest punishment.” (Qur’an 40:46)

You can see how the following have translated (with 7 translators translating al as family)

“https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/40/46/

So here the Āl is the nation and the followers.

ahlihi -his family, or his people. So we can read the prayer as:

“Say: ‘O Allah exalt the mention of Muhammed and the people of Muhammed as you exalted the mention of Ibrahim. And bless Muhammed and the people of Muhammed as you blessed Ibrahim and the people of Ibrahim in all the Worlds. You are the Praised, the Glorified.”

Here the very straight forward meaning would be the Muslims in general.

That is to say is a general prayer asking one to send blessings upon the Muslims of the people of Ibrahim (as) and the Muslims of the people of Muhammed (saw) be they of their families or not of their families.

Certainly, the Āl cannot be asking for blessings exclusively upon families as we have mentioned above.

It is very clear that the father of Ibrahim (as) is missed by such an invocation for example.

Or even the descendants of Ibrahim (as) that were evil doers, for example.

“And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain commands, which he fulfilled: He said: “I will make thee an Imam to the Nations.” He pleaded: “And also (Imams) from my offspring!” He answered: “But My Promise is not within the reach of evil-doers.” (Qur’an 2: 124)

This is the very clear understanding.

Another point of consideration.

Let us take a closer look at the innovation:

“”Say: ‘Oh Allah, exalt the mention of Muhammed, and the family of Muhammed as you exalted the mention of Ibrahim. And Bless Muhammed and the family of Muhammed
as you Blessed Ibrahim and the family of Ibrahim in all the Worlds. You are the Praised, the Glorified.”

If Muhammed (saw) is already a descendant of Ibrahim (as) this du’a is redundant.
The Blessed Prophet (saw) is already blessed -being included in Ibrahim’s family lineage.

This strengthens a view that the du’a is a general du’a of the people of Muhammed (saw), inclusive of any of his family, followers or descendants that held fast to the Qur’an and the example of the Blessed Prophet (saw).

Here are some examples of how the Tashah-hud looked in the early Muslim community.

They (the Companions of the Holy Prophet) said: Apostle of Allah, how should we bless you? He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Say:” O Allah! bless Muhammed, his wives and his offspring as You did bless Ibrahim, and grant favours to Muhammed, and his wives and his offspring as You did grant favours to the family of Ibrahim; You are the Praiseworthy and Glorious.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:407)

Narrated Ibn Mas`ud:

Allah’s Messenger (saw) taught me the Tashah-hud as he taught me a Sura from the Qur’an, while my hand was between his hands. (Tashah-hud was) all the best compliments and the prayers and the good things are for Allah. Peace and Allah’s Mercy and Blessings be on you, O Prophet! Peace be on us and on the pious slaves of Allah, I testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and I also testify that Muhammed is Allah’s slave and His Apostle. (We used to recite this in the prayer) during the lifetime of the Prophet (saw) , but when he had died, we used to say, “Peace be on the Prophet.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6265)

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Urwa ibn az- Zubayr from Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abd al-Qari that he heard Umar ibn al- Khattab say, while he was teaching people the tashahhud from the mimbar, “Say, Greetings belong to Allah. Pure actions belong to Allah. Good words and prayers belong to Allah. Peace on you, Prophet, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Peace be upon us and on the slaves of Allah who are salihun. I testify that there is no god except Allah. And I testify that Muhammed is His slave and His messenger.”

‘At-tahiyatu lillah, az-zakiyatu lillah, at-tayibatu wa’s-salawatu lillah. As-salamu alayka ayyuha’nnabiyyu wa rahmatu’llahi wa barakatuhu. As-salamu alayna wa ala ibadi’llahi s-salihin. Ash-hadu an la ilaha illa ‘llah wa ash-hadu anna Muhammadan abduhu wa rasuluh.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/malik/3/56)

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar used to say the tashahhud saying, “In the name of Allah. Greetings belong to Allah. Prayers belong to Allah. Pure actions belong to Allah. Peace be on the Prophet and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Peace be on us and on the slaves of Allah who are salihun. I testify that there is no god except Allah. I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”

“Bismillah, at-tahiyatu lillah, as-salawatu lillah, az-zakiyatu lillah. As-salamu ala’n-nabiyyi wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu. As-salamu alayna wa ala ibadi’llahi’s-salihin. Shahidtu an la ilaha illallah. Shahidtu anna Muhammadu’r-rasulu’llah.”

He used to say this after the first two rakas and he would make supplication with whatever seemed fit to him when the tashahhud was completed. When he sat at the end of the prayer, he did the tashahhud in a similar manner, except that after the tashahhud he made supplication with whatever seemed fit to him. When he had completed the tashahhud and intended to say the taslim, he said, “Peace be on the Prophet and His mercy and blessings. Peace be upon us and on the slaves of Allah who are salihun.“

“As- salamu ala’n-nabiyyi wa rahmatu’llahi wa barakatuhu. As-salamu alayna wa ala ibadi’llahi’ssalihin .”

He then said, “Peace be upon you” to his right, and would return the greeting to the imam, and if anyone said “Peace be upon you” from his left he would return the greeting to him.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/malik/3/57)

There is a great deal of information that has been kept from the public in regard to this subject.

الإمام مالك بن أنس إمام دار الهجرة:

ينقل لنا بأسانيد ذهبية صحيحة صيغة “التشهد في الصلاة” على لسان: الفاروق عمر بن الخطاب، وابنه الفقيه عبدالله بن عمر بن الخطاب، وأم المؤمنين عائشة.

وكلها ليس فيها ما تعلمناه منذ الصغر: (اللهم صلي على محمد “وعلى آل محمد” كما صليت على إبراهيم ….).

يقول النووي: (ولنا -يعني عند الشافعية- وجهٌ (شاذ) أنه يجب الصلاة على ” الآل ” وليس بشيء).

Imam Malik bin Anas, Imam of the House of Migration: He transmits to us, with authentic golden chains of transmission, the formula for “testifying in prayer” on the tongues of: Al-Farouq Umar ibn Al-Khattab (ra), his son, the jurist Abdullah bin Omar bin Al-Khattab, and the Mother of the Believers Aisha (ra). None of them contain what we learned from childhood: (O Allah, bless Muhammed and the family of Muhammed as you blessed Abraham ….) . Al-Nawawi says: (We – meaning the Shafi’is – have an (odd) view that it is obligatory to pray for the “family” and that is nothing).

ننقل الآن قول الأحناف والأمر كما ترون أيضاً ليس في التشهد عند الأحناف أي ذكر للـ “آل”.

We will now quote the Hanafi view, and the matter is as you can see. The Hanafi view also does not mention the “Al” in the testimony of faith.

In an Ibadi fiqh book on prayer published in the English language we find on page 271 the following:

Source: (The Reliable Jurisprudence of Prayer (Al -Mu’tamad fi’ Fiqh as-Salah -written by al-Mu’tasim b. Sa’id al-Ma’wali. page 271)

So we reached out ot Shaykh al-Mu’tasim about this. And his reply was the following:

“Regarding the issue at hand, you made a valid point: the correct understanding is that the Prophet’s Āl are his followers. If it is exclusive to his blood relatives, then the term would include the likes of Abū Jahl, the Prophet’s uncle, who was condemned and destined for Hellfire, as in the Qurān. This is the outweighing opinion on the issue.”

We as Ibadi follow the wording in Mudawwana of Abu Ghanim al-Khorasani (a prominent early Ibadi jurist).

The text translated into English states:

Chapter on the Tashahhud and what comes after it

You recite (1) when you sit for every two rak’ahs: “All greetings, blessings, and good prayers are due to Allah. Peace be upon you, O Prophet, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Peace be upon us and upon the righteous servants of Allah. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, alone, without any partner, and I bear witness that Muhammed is His servant and His Messenger.” [Abu ‘Ubaydah said, according to what was narrated (2): Then you make a supplication [silently] (3) after the fourth rak’ah, after this tashahhud, whatever you wish, and whatever is appropriate (4).]

Abu al-Umurrij said: Abu ‘Abdih said: This is the tashahhud of ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud (5). He said: ‘Abdullah bin ‘Isa recited it (6) (as): “All greetings, blessings, and good prayers are due to Allah. Peace be upon the Prophet and the mercy of Allah and His blessings, and peace be upon us and upon the righteous servants of Allah. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, alone, without any partner, and that Muhammed is His servant and His Messenger.” (8)

Ibn ‘Abbas said: We used to say “Peace be upon you, O Prophet” when he was still alive among us. But when the Prophet ﷺ passed away, we said “Peace be upon the Prophet and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.” (9)

Footnotes from the original text:

(1) In ‘A and S: “And the tashahhud from.”
(2) Addition from ‘A.
(3) Addition from ‘A.
(4) The editor said: His statement “after the fourth rak’ah,” etc. This is after the second rak’ah in the Fajr prayer, and after the third in Maghrib. Had he said “after completing the tashahhud” it would have included all cases, and there is no requirement for silence in what is added beyond the tashahhud.
(5) The phrase “Abu al-Mu’arrij said: Abu ‘Ubaydah said: This is the tashahhud of ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud” is missing from ‘A and S.
(6) In ‘A and S: “And he said: ‘Abdullah bin ‘Isa recited.”
(7) The editor said: His statement “His servant and His Messenger” is the end of the tashahhud. Whoever believes that the phrase “and what he brought is the truth, etc.” is part of the prayer, his prayer is feared to be invalid, except according to those who hold that the tashahhud is not obligatory.
(8) In the original and T: “idha” (when/if), but what we have confirmed from ‘A, S, and B.
(9) In ‘A and S: “So when.”

You will find some interesting points about the above.

The chain of transmission (isnad): The names mentioned (Abu ‘Ubaydah, ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud, ‘Abdullah bin ‘Isa) are key figures in early Ibadi legal tradition. Abu Ghanim’s Mudawwana is a foundational text for the Ibadi school, comparable in some ways to the Mudawwana of Sahnun in the Maliki school, though the Ibadi work is more focused on hadith and reports from early authorities.
The tashahhud wording: The Ibadi school is known for preferring the tashahhud attributed to Ibn Mas’ud (as opposed to the versions attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas or others that became more common in Sunni practice). The variant reading noted—”al-salam ‘ala al-nabi” (peace be upon the Prophet) rather than “‘alayka ayyuha al-nabi” (peace be upon you, O Prophet)—reflects the well-attested position that the latter formulation was appropriate only during the Prophet’s lifetime.
Editorial commentary: The footnotes (marked as “qala al-murattib” or “the editor said”) likely come from later Ibadi scholars who transmitted and commented on Abu Ghanim’s work. Their concern about additions to the tashahhud (footnote 7) reflects intra-madhab debates about what constitutes a valid prayer.
The instruction on silent supplication: The direction to supplicate silently after the fourth rak’ah (with the parenthetical noting application to Fajr and Maghrib) is characteristic of the detailed procedural guidance found in Ibadi fiqh manuals.

You will note that the earliest Ibadi formula matches what we find in the Qur’an here:

In fact there is no prayers upon Ibrahim and his Āl .

During the Shiaf’ication of Sunnism during the Abbasid era the Āl became exclusive to the family of the Blessed Prophet (saw).

For about a century, from 945 to 1055, the Abbasid Caliphs in Baghdad were effectively puppets of the Buyid dynasty.

A Shi’a “Protectorate”: The Buyids were a powerful Shi’i dynasty from Iran. They kept the Abbasid Caliph as a figurehead to appease the majority Sunni population. While they held the real political and military power. It is likely that the transformation of Āl was influenced by them. Allah knows best.

“Your Lord is best aware of what is in your hearts. If you are righteous, He will indeed forgive those who relent and revert.” (Qur’an 17:25)

May Allah (swt) help the Ummah to purify the community from Bid’ah.

May Allah (swt) forgive our scholars who are not free from error.

May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as allah, fiqh, hadith, Ibadi, Islam, jurisprudence, quran, religion, tashahhud

April 23, 2026 · 9:06 pm

90% Silent: Why the Christian Case Against Muhammed Depends on a Jesus Who Barely Speaks

“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)
Types of material	Sayings, parables, miracles, passion narrative	Sayings, actions, legal rulings, military campaigns, marriages, treaties, sermons, letters, economic decisions
Historical context	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!

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as bible, christianity, faith, god, Ibadi, ibadi-school, Islam, jesus, jesus-less-new-testament, muhammed, quran, the-30-missing-years-of-christ

April 21, 2026 · 8:24 am

Genesis 11, the Qur’an, and the Anthropology of Language.

“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 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.”

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.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as anthropology, babel, bible, christianity, faith, genesis-11, god, Ibadi, ibadi-school, Islam, koran, languages, linguistics, quran, the-quran, tower-of-babel

April 20, 2026 · 10:44 am

Muslims read Genesis chapter 6. The flood of Noah.

“Whosoever is rightly guided is only rightly guided for the sake of his own soul, and whosoever is astray is only astray to its detriment. None shall bear the burden of another. And never do We punish till We have sent a messenger. And when We desire to destroy a town, We command those who live a life of luxury within it; yet they commit iniquity therein. Thus the Word comes due against it and We annihilate it completely. How many generations have We destroyed since Noah’s time? Sufficient is your Lord to note and see the sins of His servants” (Qur’an 17:15-17)

﷽

When a Muslim reads Genesis chapter 6 we cannot help but to feel empathy and pity for the Agnostic or the Atheist. The presentation of God on this one page of the Bible has been enough to cast severe doubt into the hearts and minds of many Christians.

Before we look at the contents of Genesis chapter 6 it is helpful to look at what some of the luminaries of Christianity thought on the matter.

Chrisitans believe that the Holy Spirit has guided their learned people concerning the truth about these matters.

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

The Church Father Justin Martyr says:

“But the whole earth, as the Scripture says, was inundated, and the water rose in height fifteen cubits above all the mountains: so that it is evident this was not spoken to the land, but to the people who obeyed Him: for whom also He had before prepared a resting-place in Jerusalem, as was previously demonstrated by all the symbols of the deluge; I mean, that by water, faith, and wood, those who are afore-prepared, and who repent of the sins which they have committed, shall escape from the impending judgment of God.”

Source: (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01289.htm) chapter 138.

St. Theophilus of Antioch says:

“And Moses showed that the flood lasted forty days and forty nights, torrents pouring from heaven, and from the fountains of the deep breaking up, so that the water overtopped every high hill 15 cubits. And thus the race of all the men that then were was destroyed, and those only who were protected in the ark were saved; and these, we have already said, were eight. And of the ark, the remains are to this day to be seen in the Arabian mountains. This, then, is in sum the history of the deluge.”

Source: (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02043.htm) chapter 19.

St. Augustine of Hippo answering some objections to the universal flood says the following:

“They say, too, that the area of that ark could not contain so many kinds of animals of both sexes, two of the unclean and seven of the clean. But they seem to me to reckon only one area of 300 cubits long and 50 broad, and not to remember that there was another similar in the story above, and yet another as large in the story above that again; and that there was consequently an area of 900 cubits by 150. And if we accept what Origin has with some appropriateness suggested, that Moses the man of God, being, as it is written, learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, Acts 7:22 who delighted in geometry, may have meant geometrical cubits, of which they say that one is equal to six of our cubits, then who does not see what a capacity these dimensions give to the ark? For as to their objection that an ark of such size could not be built, it is a very silly calumny; for they are aware that huge cities have been built, and they should remember that the ark was an hundred years in building. Or, perhaps, though stone can adhere to stone when cemented with nothing but lime, so that a wall of several miles may be constructed, yet plank cannot be riveted to plank by mortices, bolts, nails, and pitch-glue, so as to construct an ark which was not made with curved ribs but straight timbers, which was not to be launched by its builders, but to be lifted by the natural pressure of the water when it reached it, and which was to be preserved from shipwreck as it floated about rather by divine oversight than by human skill.”

“As to another customary inquiry of the scrupulous about the very minute creatures, not only such as mice and lizards, but also locusts, beetles, flies, fleas, and so forth, whether there were not in the ark a larger number of them than was determined by God in His command, those persons who are moved by this difficulty are to be reminded that the words every creeping thing of the earth only indicate that it was not needful to preserve in the ark the animals that can live in the water, whether the fishes that live submerged in it, or the sea-birds that swim on its surface. Then, when it is said male and female, no doubt reference is made to the repairing of the races, and consequently there was no need for those creatures being in the ark which are born without the union of the sexes from inanimate things, or from their corruption; or if they were in the ark, they might be there as they commonly are in houses, not in any determinate numbers; or if it was necessary that there should be a definite number of all those animals that cannot naturally live in the water, that so the most sacred mystery. which was being enacted might be bodied forth and perfectly figured in actual realities, still this was not the care of Noah or his sons, but of God. For Noah did not catch the animals and put them into the ark, but gave them entrance as they came seeking it. For this is the force of the words, They shall come unto you, Genesis 6:19-20 — not, that is to say, by man’s effort, but by God’s will. But certainly we are not required to believe that those which have no sex also came; for it is expressly and definitely said, They shall be male and female. For there are some animals which are born out of corruption, but yet afterwards they themselves copulate and produce offspring, as flies; but others, which have no sex, like bees. Then, as to those animals which have sex, but without ability to propagate their kind, like mules and she-mules, it is probable that they were not in the ark, but that it was counted sufficient to preserve their parents, to wit, the horse and the ass; and this applies to all hybrids. Yet, if it was necessary for the completeness of the mystery, they were there; for even this species has male and female.“

“Another question is commonly raised regarding the food of the carnivorous animals — whether, without transgressing the command which fixed the number to be preserved, there were necessarily others included in the ark for their sustenance; or, as is more probable, there might be some food which was not flesh, and which yet suited all. For we know how many animals whose food is flesh eat also vegetable products and fruits, especially figs and chestnuts. What wonder is it, therefore, if that wise and just man was instructed by God what would suit each, so that without flesh he prepared and stored provision fit for every species? And what is there which hunger would not make animals eat? Or what could not be made sweet and wholesome by God, who, with a divine facility, might have enabled them to do without food at all, had it not been requisite to the completeness of so great a mystery that they should be fed? But none but a contentious man can suppose that there was no prefiguring of the church in so manifold and circumstantial a detail. For the nations have already so filled the church, and are comprehended in the framework of its unity, the clean and unclean together, until the appointed end, that this one very manifest fulfillment leaves no doubt how we should interpret even those others which are somewhat more obscure, and which cannot so readily be discerned. And since this is so, if not even the most audacious will presume to assert that these things were written without a purpose, or that though the events really happened they mean nothing, or that they did not really happen, but are only allegory, or that at all events they are far from having any figurative reference to the church; if it has been made out that, on the other hand, we must rather believe that there was a wise purpose in their being committed to memory and to writing, and that they did happen, and have a significance, and that this significance has a prophetic reference to the church, then this book, having served this purpose, may now be closed, that we may go on to trace in the history subsequent to the deluge the courses of the two cities — the earthly, that lives according to men, and the heavenly, that lives according to God.”

Source: (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120115.htm-chapter 27)

Some people also point to the following text to also prove the flood was universal.

“To me this is like the days of Noah, when I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth. So now I have sworn not to be angry with you, never to rebuke you again.” (Isaiah 54:9)

Such a promise can only happen if the flood was universal (covered the whole Earth) as regional floods happen all the time.

Genesis chapter 6: What the Bible actually says.

Wickendess in the World

“When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”

“The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.”

Noah and the Flood

“This is the account of Noah and his family.”

“Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God. Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.”

“Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high. Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit high all around. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”

“Noah did everything just as God commanded him.”

Prima Qur’an comments: We have lots of questions concerning this Biblical account in Genesis 3.

The god of Genesis chapter 3 says:

” their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

The Muslim is surprised by this because the very same Bible says:

“Noah lived a total of 950 years, and then he died.” (Genesis 9:29)

It also contradicts information found in the Qur’an.

“Indeed, We sent Noah to his people, and he remained among them for a thousand years, less fifty. Then the Flood overtook them, while they persisted in wrongdoing.” (Qur’an 29:14)

Allah knows the future. Allah’s creation and plan are perfect.

Allah informs the believing Muslims the following in the Qur’an.

The Qur’an says: “Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 9:28)

“Who has perfected everything He created.” (Qur’an 32:7)

“Who created seven heavens, one above the other. You will never see any imperfection in the creation of the Most Compassionate. So look again: do you see any flaws?” (Qur’an 67:3)

However, the Bible tells us the following about it’s god.

“The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.” “for I regret that I have made them“

This goes against the idea that Allah (swt) is all knowing and that his Creation and plan are perfect.

The above depiction in Genesis 6 cannot be the description of The one and only God.

In Islam we have the Ad-Dooriyyat Al-Khams: -The Five Basic Necessities that are protected and recognized by Islamic law-Shari’ah.

Life.
Religion.
Wealth.
Lineage.
Mind (intellect).

Here as Muslims we are concerned with the Mind (intellect) here.

Indeed, religion calls for reflection and contemplation, And addresses the mind before it settles in the heart, So that faith becomes steadfast, rooted in understanding and certainty.

This account as is narrated from the Bible in Genesis chapter 3 is an assault on the Mind (intellect).

“Verily, the vilest of all creatures in the sight of Allah are those deaf, those dumb ones who do not use their reason.” (Qur’an 8:22)

“They will further say: “Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we should not (now) be among the Companions of the Blazing Fire!” (Qur’an 67:10)

The Logic of the God of Genesis Chapter 3 does not add up.

Cause of the flood in Genesis chapter 6.

We are given the following information from Genesis chapter 6.

“The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.”

“Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.”

However, we are also informed:

“So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

“I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.”

This god’s logic for the end of humanity on the Earth is due to their wickedness and violence. However, why must the animals and birds and creatures that move along the ground be punished? Surely they cannot be attributed with wickedness?

Even if this god wanted to attribute violence to some of these creatures surely that is the mechanism by which this god ordained the very survival of a great many species?

The Logic of the god of Gesnsis Chapter 3 gets even worse!

“I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.”

Aren’t fish (and sea creatures in general) creatures that have the breath of life in them?

And if we are going to reason as Christian apologist may reason what is the wickedness and violence that the animals and birds and creatures that move along the ground do that the creatures of the sea do not due that spare them from total obliteration?

What about freshwater species?

A global flood would be a catastrophic event for freshwater life.

In Saltwater: If a freshwater fish is placed in saltwater, the opposite happens. The saltier ocean water pulls water out of the fish’s body through osmosis. Simultaneously, salt from the ocean rushes into its body.

Result: The fish would rapidly become severely dehydrated, suffer organ failure from salt toxicity, and die within minutes or hours. They cannot simply “swim and adapt.”

The tens of thousands of unique species like Bass, Trout, Catfish, Cichlids, Carp, and Guppies—along with all the frogs, salamanders, river turtles, and freshwater insects—would almost certainly go completely extinct.

On what consistsent and logical basis does the god of Genesis chapter 3 damn the Tuna but save the Trout?

The dimensions of the ark and the the keeping of two of every kind of living creature.

“This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high. Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit high all around. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks.”

“You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”

Keep in mind that the estimates of all living creatures on the Earth are as follows:

Animal Group	Number of Known/Described Species
Insects	~1,000,000 (the largest group) *
Reptiles	~12,568 *
Mammals	~6,759 *
Spiders & Arachnids	~120,000 *
Birds	~11,000 *
Amphibians	~8,000 *

*Feel free to obtain your own independent data on these figures. There are many from among these species that have gone extinct as well. Which means there would have been more in the time of Noah.

You can see above where St. Augustine of Hippo (bless his little pagan heart) had tried to justify the objections that people in his day had as well.

The Ship’s Actual Livable Space

First, the ship’s dimensions:

Length: 450 ft (135 m)
Width: 75 ft (23 m)
Height: 45 ft (14 m)

The total enclosed volume is roughly 1.5 million cubic feet (about 43,000 cubic meters). That sounds like a lot, but it’s roughly the size of a medium-sized office building or a large warehouse.

However, much of that space is structural (walls, decks, support beams). The actual livable, cage-accessible floor space is far less. A reasonable estimate for usable deck area across, say, 4 internal decks is about 100,000–120,000 square feet (approx. 10,000 square meters).

That’s about the size of two NFL American football fields (including end zones).

Now, let’s see what you need to put on those two football fields.

We need to house at least two of each species (male/female) for breeding. That’s 3 million individual animals just for the named species. And for many social species (like insects or birds), you’d need far more to maintain a viable colony.

Let’s look at the space just for the larger animals, ignoring insects for a moment:

Group	Number of Species	Minimum Pair Space Needed (very cramped)	Total Space Required
Mammals	6,759	Avg. 20 sq ft per pair (e.g., a mouse vs. an elephant)	135,180 sq ft
Birds	11,000	Avg. 5 sq ft per pair (cage space)	55,000 sq ft
Reptiles	12,568	Avg. 4 sq ft per pair	50,272 sq ft
Amphibians	8,000	Avg. 1 sq ft per pair (small terrarium)	8,000 sq ft
Arachnids	120,000	Avg. 0.1 sq ft per pair (a small jar)	12,000 sq ft
Subtotal (just these groups)	158,327 species		~260,000 sq ft

That’s already more than double the entire ship’s usable floor space (~120,000 sq ft). And we haven’t added a single insect yet!

Now add the 1 million known insect species (2 million individuals). Even if you put 100 insect pairs into a single 1 sq ft container (which would be a horrific, cannibalistic nightmare), that’s still 20,000 sq ft just for their containers. But realistically, insects need space, air, food plants, and separation (ants need colonies, beetles need logs, butterflies need flight space). You’d need a dedicated warehouse the size of the ship itself just for the insects.

This becomes more problematic when you factor the following:

“The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. ” (Gensis 7:1-3)

How long where Noah his family and all the entourage of Animals on that boat?

Genesis chapter 6 does not supply us with that information.

“And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.” (Genesis 7:24)

“And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.” (Genesis 8:3)

“For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.” (Genesis 7:4)

“And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.” (Genesis 7:12)

“Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth.” (Genesis 7:17)

So rather it be 150 days or 371 as some Christian apologist suggest this brings us to another set of complications.

The Real Problems Are Worse Than Space

Space is just the first problem. The other three are insurmountable:

A) Food and Water

A single pair of elephants needs hundreds of pounds of fresh vegetation daily. Where is that grown? How is it stored for a flood lasting weeks or months?
Freshwater fish would need massive, separate aquariums with circulating fresh water. A single 10-gallon tank per fish species? That’s 23,000 tanks just for known fish species. Noah’s ship doesn’t have the weight capacity or plumbing for that.
Insectivores (anteaters, many birds, spiders) need thousands of live insects per day. You’d need to be farming insects onboard just to feed the other animals.

B) Waste

Three million animals produce an astonishing amount of manure, urine, and dead bodies. On a ship this size, the ammonia from waste alone would poison the air within days. You’d need a dedicated industrial composting and ventilation system the size of a second ship.

C) Climate and Environment

Reptiles need heat lamps (90°F+).
Polar bears need freezing temperatures.
Amphibians need 100% humidity.
Desert spiders need bone-dry sand.

You cannot maintain these vastly different climates within a few feet of each other on a single, small ship. The energy and equipment required would fill the vessel.

As we saw above St. Augustine of Hippo is filled with statements that only an ignoramous would make. He tried to resolve some of these issues.

Examples like:

“God in His command, those persons who are moved by this difficulty are to be reminded that the words every creeping thing of the earth only indicate that it was not needful to preserve in the ark the animals that can live in the water, whether the fishes that live submerged in it, or the sea-birds that swim on its surface.”

Which shows his ignorance of the fresh water species.

“But certainly we are not required to believe that those which have no sex also came; for it is expressly and definitely said, They shall be male and female. For there are some animals which are born out of corruption, but yet afterwards they themselves copulate and produce offspring, as flies; but others, which have no sex, like bees.”

Which shows his ignorance concerning the distinction of sex among bees.

This also then circles back to the question of on what consistent logic and basis is this god of Genesis chapter 6 making these decisions.

So are we to assume that land snails whom are hermaphrodites that don’t enter the boat don’t get absolutely wrecked by the salinity of the oceans? This is a far cry from reality.

What is also interesting is that hetrosexual species need to get on the boat to be saved. Yet some how this god of Genesis chapter 6 gives special abililties to the hermaphrodites of the Earth to not be bothered by it! So who is being favoured here?

St. Augustine of Hipp does appeal to the following text of Genesis 6 to suggest how all these different species are gathered. “Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.”

So somehow these species animals, birds, reptiles made the journey from South America, North America (via the Bering Strait) then they cross what is now Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, enter Iraq and reach Mesopotamia.

So those distinctive species of millipedes from what is now called Argentina and Chile which have an average speed of roughly 0.005 mph (8 meters per hour). For reference, a garden snail moves at about 0.03 mph, making a millipede nearly 6 times slower than a snail.

While a real millipede would never attempt such a journey, we can calculate a “best-case” travel time using the math of its very slow pace. Assuming the millipede could move continuously without stopping to eat, sleep, or avoid hazards, the trip would take approximately 244 million years!!!

The hetrosexual millipede has to make an arduous journey; meanwhile the hermaphroditic snail gets to chill…

The Qur’an, Noah and the Flood

We have already quoted the verses that show that Allah (swt) knows the future and that regret is not something befitting to Allah.

The Qur’an mentions Noah-alayi salam 43 times.

When Muslims read the account of Noah (as) and the flood we do not find any of the following information.

The duration of this flood.
The geographical location of the flood.
The geographical location of Noah.
The actual number of people who went on the boat.

This is what we do find.

Noah (as) a messenger to his people not the whole of mankind.

It mentions that Noah was a prophet to his people and not the whole world.

“We had certainly sent Noah (Nuh) to his people, and he said, “O my people, worship Allah; you have no deity other than Him. Indeed, I fear for you the punishment of a tremendous Day.” (Qur’an 7:59)

“And We sent not a Messenger except with the language of his people, in order that he might make (the Message) clear for them.” (Qur’an 14:4)

The Qur’an categorically denies that the flood was over the whole Earth.

“And the people of Noah,- when they rejected the messengers, We drowned them, and We made them as a Sign for mankind; and We have prepared for (all) wrong-doers a grievous Penalty.” (Qur’an 25:37)

“And they denied him, so We saved him and those with him in the ship and made them successors, and We drowned those who denied Our signs. Then see how was the end of those who were warned.” (Qur’an 10:73)

The flood itself did not destroy all the people. Only those who denied the signs of Allah were drowned.

“Then We drowned the others.” (Qur’an 37:82)

“Then afterwards We drowned the rest.” (Qur’an 26:120)

The others and the rest are a reference to ‘those who denied Our signs.’

“But they denied him, so We saved him and those who were with him in the ship. And We drowned those who denied Our signs. Indeed, they were a blind people.” (Qur’an 7:64)

Noah (as) and his family were saved from the hardship that the flood certainly would have brought those around them.

Text from the Qur’an that are used to suggest the flood was universal as in the Genesis 6 account.

“My Lord! Do not leave a single disbeliever on (l-arḍi) earth.” (Qur’an 71:26)

This seems very clear when you read some translations of the Qur’an. However, the (l-arḍi) can mean land or the land.

“And Nuh said: My Lord! leave not upon the land any dweller from among the unbelievers.” (Qur’an 71:26 -Shakir translation)

You may see for yourself here: https://islamawakened.com/quran/71/26/translations/

Another example from the Qur’an.

“O my people! Enter the holy (l-arḍi) land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.” (Qur’an 5:21)

In this case if l-arḍi always means Earth in it’s totality then where is Allah (swt) addressing these people? Are they in space?

What about the Ark of Noah(as) resting on El Judi?

“And it was said, ‘Earth (yāarḍu), swallow the waters; and, heaven, abate!’ And the waters subsided, the affair was accomplished, and the Ark settled on El-Judi, and it was said: ‘Away with the people of the evildoers!'” (Qur’an 11:44)

Few quick points.

Earth again does not mean whole Earth. Notice the Arabic word has the same etymological root.
Settled on El Judi does not mean it’s peak. A boat can settle at the base of a mountain.

The animals that went on the boat with Noah.

“Our command came the and the baked Oven gushed forth with water. We said: “Load on it every (kullin) pair two, and your family, except him against whom the Word has already gone forth, and those who believe. And none believed with him, except a few.” (Qur’an 11:40)

“We then revealed our instructions to him: “Build the Ark under Our supervision and revealed instructions. And when, at Our command, the surface of the baked Oven gushed forth with water, put into it every(kullin) pair two, and members of your family, except those among them against whom the Word (Allah’s decree) has already been issued. And do not plead with Me on behalf of those who are cruel. They shall indeed be drowned.” (Qur’an 23:27)

There are things that we can definitively say about the above two verses and things we cannot definitively say about the above two verses.

It cannot mean every animal in their totality because those species that would naturally survive a flood are not included.

The word every kulli does not necessarily mean all in the sense of total without exception.

“Indeed, I found [there] a woman ruling them, and she has been given of all (kulli) things, and she has a great throne.” (Qur’an 27:23)

The word dābbatin is not in either of the above text.

Dābbatin (دَآبَّةٍ) in Arabic generally means a moving creature, animal, or beast.

“Indeed, I have relied upon Allah , my Lord and your Lord. There is no creature (dābbatin) but that He holds its forelock. Indeed, my Lord is on a path straight.” (Qur’an 11:56)

“And there is no (dābbatin)creature on [or within] the earth or bird that flies with its wings except [that they are] communities like you. We have not neglected in the Register a thing. Then unto their Lord they will be gathered.” (Qur’an 6:38)

So in the absense of time and duration of this flood it would make sense for Prophet Noah (as) to take that which would give his family provision once the deluge subsided.

We cannot say which pairs Noah was instructed to take because the text (Qur’an 11:40 & Qur’an 23:27) does not specify this.

However, it was clear to Noah what he was to take. An example could be the following:

“Eight pairs; of the sheep two (male and female), and of the goats two (male and female). Say: “Has He forbidden the two males or the two females, or (the young) which the wombs of the two females enclose? Inform me with knowledge if you are truthful.” (Qur’an 6:143)

“And of the camels two (male and female), and of oxen two (male and female). Say: “Has He forbidden the two males or the two females or (the young) which the wombs of the two females enclose? Or were you present when Allah ordered you such a thing? Then who does more wrong than one who invents a lie against Allah, to lead mankind astray without knowledge. Certainly Allah guides not the people who are wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 6:144)

ONE OF THE MOST UNDERRATED POINTS CONCERNING THE FLOOD.

“And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.” (Genesis 7:12)

The Genesis 6 account coupled with it’s informative verses outside the chapter present us with major and massive problems.

The Prerequisite Drought & Mass Extinction

To get 40 days of global rain, you first need to fill the atmosphere with an impossible amount of water vapor. The only way to do that is through massive, planet-wide evaporation.

Solar radiation would have to heat the oceans to near-boiling levels to evaporate that much water. Before a single drop of rain fell, the continents would experience a catastrophic, years-long drought. All rivers, lakes, and soil moisture would evaporate into the super-humid air. All terrestrial plants would dessicate and die within months. No seeds would survive the prolonged heat and lack of liquid water. With dead, dried vegetation covering every continent, lightning strikes would ignite global firestorms. The atmospheric oxygen levels would plummet, and the sky would turn black with soot long before the rain started. All land animals would die of thirst during the drought before the floodwaters even arrived. The ark would be collecting corpses, not living creatures.

2. Can Clouds Hold That Much Precipitation?

This is a fundamental limit of atmospheric physics. The air cannot hold an infinite amount of water.

Even at 100% humidity and scorching temperatures (100°F / 38°C), a cubic meter of air can hold at most ~40 grams of water vapor.

The Math for a Global Flood: To cover Mount Everest (29,000 ft / 8,800 m) in 40 days, you need roughly 220 meters (720 feet) of rain per hour across the entire planet.

The Impossibility: The atmosphere simply does not contain enough water. To deliver that much rain, the air would need to hold thousands of times more water vapor than physically possible before it condenses into liquid. Clouds would have to be denser than liquid water itself, which is impossible.

Think of it this way: You cannot wring a gallon of water out of a sponge that only holds a cup. The global atmosphere is that sponge.

3. The “Constants” Problem (Energy & Heat)

This is the killer. The Earth must radiate heat back into space to maintain a stable temperature. Rain releases heat.

Latent Heat Release: When water vapor condenses into rain, it releases massive amounts of energy (the same energy that heated the water to evaporate it). 40 days of global rain would release the energy equivalent of millions of hydrogen bombs detonating every second.

The Resulting Temperature: This energy would superheat the atmosphere. The rain wouldn’t be cool; it would be scalding hot (likely exceeding the boiling point of water at sea level). The flood would be a planet-wide steam bath, cooking everything alive.

The Constants Broken: The Earth’s ability to radiate heat (the Stefan-Boltzmann law) would be completely overwhelmed. The planet would not return to a normal climate for thousands of years, and the oceans would remain near boiling.

THE QUR’AN OFFERS A BETTER ALTERNATIVE.

There is only one place in the Qur’an that mentions the sky pouring rain in connection with the flood.

Rainwater is treated as more of an after thought. There is no mention of 40 days and nights of rainfall.

“So We opened the gates of the sky with pouring rain, and caused the earth to burst with springs, so the waters met for a fate already set.” (Qur’an 54:11-12)

Coupled with the above:

baked Oven gushed forth with water (Qur’an 11:40)

the surface of the baked Oven gushed forth with water, (Qur’an 23:27)

This points to a larger geological phenomena that is not connected with rainfall.

The Qur’an offers a very clean account of the phenomena that was conntect to Noah and the building of his boat. It does not have the problems and outright bizarre outburst of the god of Genesis chapter 6.

It doesn’t offer the fuzzy logic of the god of Genesis chapter 6. A capracious deity that offers no consistent logic on what basis something lives or dies.

You have to wonder that if the Qur’an was a copy from Genesis 6 (which in reality is a transcribing of events that happened before it was put to text) why not mention the location of Noah or his people?

Why not attempt to mention how long they were on their boat?

The Bible says:

“To those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water.” (1 Peter 3:20)

Why doesn’t the Qur’an attempt to number the people who were on the boat?

You may be interested to read the following:

Found! Hidden Ocean Locked Up Deep in Earth’s Mantle.

https://www.livescience.com/46292-hidden-ocean-locked-in-earth-mantle.html

This article is more than 11 years old

Earth may have underground ‘ocean’ three times that on surface

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/13/earth-may-have-underground-ocean-three-times-that-on-surface

Rare mineral points to vast ‘oceans’ beneath the Earth

https://www.ualberta.ca/en/folio/2014/03/rare-mineral-points-to-vast-oceans-beneath-the-earth.html

May Allah guide the Jews and Christians so that they do not enter the hellfire.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as bible, faith, genesis, geological-events, god, Ibadi, Islam, noah, nuh, quran, the-deluge, the-flood

April 16, 2026 · 10:18 am

Never the Only God: How the Bible Preserves Henotheism and the Qur’an Protects Monotheism

“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.”

Source: (https://biblehub.com/commentaries/hosea/2-16.htm)

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 precise than “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 like any 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)

Source: (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2032%3A8-9&version=NIV)

In the source above there is a note that states:

“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)

Source: (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2032%3A8-9&version=NRSVA)

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 idolatrous Israelites. 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.”

Source: (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10443b.htm)

“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.”

Source: (https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Sanhedrin.7.7.2?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en)

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.

There is an entire discussion about it here:

https://come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_64.html#64a_20

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.”

Source: (https://www.sefaria.org/Zechariah.3?lang=bi (Zechariah 3:2)

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.”

Source: (https://www.sefaria.org/Job.1.22?lang=bi (Job 2:1-7)

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)

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/bible-verses/john-1-1/

Source: (https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/bible-verses/john-1-1/)

They make Moses say the following:

“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.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as baal, bible, christianity, elyon, faith, god, henotheism, Ibadi, ibadi-islam, ibadi-school, Islam, jesus, moloch, monotheism, muhammed, polytheism, quran, theology, yaweh, yhwh

	primaquran on Muslims read Genesis chapter 6…
	T on Muslims read Genesis chapter 6…
	primaquran on Muslims read Genesis chapter 6…
	T on Muslims read Genesis chapter 6…
	primaquran on Never the Only God: How the Bi…

Tag Archives: Ibadi

Fighting a Muslim is Kufr. The Ibadi Doctrine of kufr ni’mah in regard to the companions

Shi’i ask the Ibadi questions on Siffin and Nahrawn.

What are the signs that we have faith?

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

The Question of Slavery & Milk Al Yamin In Islam.

Tashahhud in the Ibadi school.

90% Silent: Why the Christian Case Against Muhammed Depends on a Jesus Who Barely Speaks

Genesis 11, the Qur’an, and the Anthropology of Language.

Muslims read Genesis chapter 6. The flood of Noah.

Never the Only God: How the Bible Preserves Henotheism and the Qur’an Protects Monotheism

Follow Prima Quran

Recent Comments

Most Read

Recent Posts

Web Site Hits

Hadith about Oman

Tag Archives: Ibadi

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Follow Prima Quran

Recent Comments

Most Read

Recent Posts

Web Site Hits