This section will be miscellaneous information on a wide range of topics. This section does not necessarily reflect the views or attitudes of either the Ibadi school or adherents of the school.
Do note some links are broken. We are in the process of restoring those links.
Allah willing we will continue to update this section and organize it accordingly as well:
“The Jews and Christians each claim that none will enter Paradise except those of their own faith. These are their desires. Reply, “Produuce your proof if what you say is true.” (Qur’an 2:111)
﷽
In this blog post we look into the fascinating eyewitness testimony of the Christian faith as well as its historical corraboration.
First we start with what Christians call the apostle Paul.
“This is the third time I am coming to you. “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (2 Corinthians13:1)
“One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” (Deuteronomy 19:15)
The context and intention behind his application are specific:
The Original Context: In Deuteronomy, this law was designed to protect the accused in an Israelite court from false accusations, requiring physical or corroborating human witnesses for a criminal conviction.
Paul’s Application: Paul is applying this principle to establish the validity of his apostolic authority.
Paul’s biodata.
He has no provable biography.
We have no idea who Paul’s parents are.
Was Paul recorded in a Roman census?
We have no record of this.
Paul has no provable connection to Prophet Abraham alayhi s-salām
Paul has no provable connection to the tribe of Benjamin.
“I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.” (Romans 11:1)
“Circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee.” (Philippians 3:5)
This is a claim without evidence.
No genealogy is provided.
No Benjaminite registry exists to verify it.
No contemporary document outside his letters corroborates it.
In the Hebrew Bible, tribal identity was patrilineal and documented. Paul gives no father’s name, no clan, no ancestral town in Benjaminite territory (e.g., Gibeah, Mizpah). It is an unverifiable claim.
Ask a Christian, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Anglican to give you Paul’s genealogy traceable back to Benjamin. They can’t!
Paul and his name.
“Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said,…” (Acts 13:9)
If we say, “Paul says his name is Paul,” that proves nothing. Anyone can name themselves. Without external verification (e.g., Roman census records, contemporary letters from others, a tombstone, etc.), it’s just self-testimony.
“Studied under Gamaliel” – no evidence from Gamaliel.
“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.” (Acts 22:3)
Gamaliel was a famous rabbi (Acts 5:34–40). He is mentioned in later Jewish tradition (Mishnah). But:
Gamaliel never mentions Paul.
No rabbinic text lists Paul as a student of Gamaliel.
No contemporary records from Gamaliel’s academy name Paul.
Acts 22:3 is the only source for this claim. Again, Paul (or Luke writing for Paul) is the sole witness. By the legal principle Paul cited, this is inadmissible.
What is the proof that anyone met the ‘historical’ Paul?
Paul mentioned outside of his own writings?
“Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:15-16)
Beyond the fact that the authorship of 2 Peter is highly disputed there is no mention about meeting Paul here.
If we grant that it was indeed written by Peter, the passage doesn’t mention anything about meeting Paul in person, it just mentions Paul’s letters. So it’s a possible witness that Peter believed a person named Paul wrote some letters.
Then we have the following claim in Acts.
“When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus.” (Acts 9:26-27)
This is contradicted by the following:
“I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.” (Galatians 1:17)
So in this instance you have Paul’s own testimony versus a statement made about him some many years later.
Christianity demands I bet my soul on ONE guy, who claims to have met Jesus on the road to Damascus, with an undisclosed number of anonymous witnesses, witnesses who never wrote anything. That is a hard pass!
Paul’s own letters—which are our primary sources—never mention the Damascus road experience with companions present at all. He speaks of his encounter in intensely personal terms, and the elaborate narrative with Ananias, the blinding, and the companions only appears in Acts, written by someone else decades later.
No one witnessed Paul’s “vision”.
In Acts 9, the men traveling with Paul heard a voice but saw no one (Acts 9:7). In Acts 22, Paul says they saw the light but did not hear the voice (Acts 22:9). These are contradictory accounts of what the witnesses experienced. But crucially:
None of those men saw Jesus.
None of them testified to Paul’s claim that Jesus appeared to Paul.
They never wrote anything, and we don’t even know their names.
Who witnessed Paul receiving revelation from Jesus Christ?
“I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:12)
Paul claims that he is receiving his revelation direct from Jesus rather than from human teachers who actually knew Jesus.
Who witnessed this?
Who witnessed Paul receving his revelation?
What condition did these witnesses describe?
1 Corinthians 15:3–8 :The testimony of Paul under the microscope.
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared (ōphthē – ὤφθη) to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared (ōphthē) to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared (ōphthē) to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared (ōphthē) to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Christians often quote this section of the New Testament as if it is some impressive tour de force, about historical Christianity often do not realize how historically weak the following claims are.
Paul claims“That he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” That is not eye witness testimony. That is an appeal to contested interpretations of the Tanakh.
Paul claims “and that he appeared (ōphthē) to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve.” The New Testament contains two letters attributed to Peter (1 Peter and 2 Peter). In these writings, he (Peter) does not explicitly claim to have seen the resurrected Jesus.
Then to the twelve.
Douay-Rheims (Catholic): “And that he was seen by Cephas, and after that by the eleven.” (Note: eleven, not twelve)
King James Version: “And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.”
Codex Bezae & some Old Latin manuscripts: Also read “eleven” instead of “twelve.”
“then to the twelve” is also incorrect. There was no living group called “the Twelve” at that time. After Judas’s suicide and before Matthias, they were eleven. after Judas died and before Matthias was chosen (Acts 1:15–26), the group was technically eleven.
Some manuscripts (Codex Bezae, some Old Latin) -Douay Rheims says eleven. So if you are Catholic we can let you off the hook (this time).
“After that, he (ōphthē) appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep”
More than 500! Most of whom are still living?!!
What are their names Paul?
What did they write?
Where is their testimony?
Ask a Christian, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Anglican to give you the names of these 500. Ask them to tell what those 500 wrote?
No early church father ever cites a single one of these 500 by name.
No hostile witness (e.g., Celsus, Porphyry, Lucian) ever says: “I checked with those 500 and they denied it.”
It’s an unfalsifiable claim, not a verifiable one. In any court of law, “I have 500 witnesses but I won’t tell you who they are” would be laughed out of the room.
“Then he (ōphthē)appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”
Where does James claim in his book to have seen the resurrected Jesus?
“and last of all he (ōphthē) appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born” Paul uses that same word “ὤφθη (ōphthē) Paul uses the same verb for his own “vision” on Damascus road (1 Cor 15:8 – “as to one abnormally born”) and for the appearances to Peter, the Twelve, 500, James.
Paul uses the identical verb for his own visionary experience and for the others he mentioned. In Greek, no distinction is made in the text between a physical, bodily resurrection appearance and a visionary one. That is a theological inference, not a linguistic one.
Seeing that Paul did not meet the historical Jesus but only claimed to have saw him in a vision then Paul had no way of distinguishing his vision from theirs, so we cannot trust that theirs was physical either!
If Paul’s appearance was visionary, and he uses the same verb for the others, the burden is on the apologist to prove theirs was physical—not on us to prove it wasn’t. And they cannot, because no independent witness describes what Peter or James or the 500 saw in physical terms!
We have no independent attestation from any of those 500, no names, no writings. Paul’s appeal to “most are still alive” is rhetorically powerful but historically unverifiable!
There are no independent witnesses to the resurrection appearance Paul claims. Paul is bearing witness for himself — which Deuteronomy 19:15 and 2 Corinthians 13:1 explicitly forbid as sufficient evidence.
After wading through the works of apologists like Gary Habermas, Josh McDowell, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Lee Strobel, and Gleason Archer, one comes to realize that the entire enterprise is nothing but gobbledygook.
Major Premise (Paul’s own stated rule).
“A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” (Deuteronomy 19:15, quoted by Paul in 2 Corinthians 13:1)
Formalized: For any claim to be accepted as legally or factually established, there must be at least two independent, corroborating witnesses who are not the accused or the sole interested party.
Minor Premise (Paul’s claim)
Paul claims that Jesus appeared to him (1 Corinthians 15:8), that he received his gospel by revelation from Jesus (Galatians 1:12), and that this establishes his apostolic authority and the truth of Jesus’ resurrection.
Unnamed, unverifiable “500” witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:6) who left no written testimony.
No independent, identifiable, contemporaneous witness who saw what Paul claims.
(Applying the rule to Paul’s case)
Requirement
Does Paul meet it?
Two or more witnesses
No. Paul is the primary witness for his own vision/revelation.
Witnesses not identical with the accused
No. The accused (Paul) is testifying for himself.
Witnesses who can be named, examined, or cross-referenced
No. The 500 are unnamed. Acts’ author is anonymous and not contemporaneous.
Independent corroboration of the claimed event
No. No one else claims to have seen Jesus appear to Paul.
Testimony consistent across witnesses
No. Acts 9 vs. Acts 22 disagree on what the companions heard/saw. Galatians contradicts Acts on the Jerusalem visit.
Conclusion.
P1: According to Paul (citing Deuteronomy 19:15 and 2 Corinthians 13:1), no matter is to be established except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
P2: A witness, to be valid, must be independent of the person making the claim, identifiable, and capable of providing corroborating testimony.
P3: Paul’s claim to have received revelation from the risen Jesus is supported only by:
P4: None of these constitute two or three independent, identifiable, corroborating witnesses under the standard Paul himself invokes.
C: Therefore, by Paul’s own stated legal principle, his testimony is insufficient to establish the matter of Jesus’ resurrection appearance to him, his divine revelation, or his apostolic authority.
This is the historicity and eye witness testimony that the Christian faith hinges upon.
The belief in Paul and his testimony hinges upon self claims. Christians inform us that Jesus is reported to have said:
“If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true.” (John 5:31)
The theological trap for Christians.
If a Christian accepts John 5:31 as Scripture they now face an insoluble problem:
Either John 5:31 applies universally (including to Paul), in which case Paul’s self-witness is invalid.
Or John 5:31 does not apply universally, in which case Jesus’ own saying is not a binding principle—undermining the authority of the Gospel of John itself!
There is no consistent position where:
John 5:31 is true,
Paul’s self-witness is sufficient,
And the standard is applied fairly.
If Christianity’s central resurrection claim depends on Paul’s testimony, and Paul’s testimony fails his own test, then the honest inquirer cannot be faulted for rejecting Christianity outright.
You may also be interested in reading the following:
“That is from the news of the unseen which We reveal to you. And you were not with them when they cast their pens as to which of them should be responsible for Mary. Nor were you with them when they disputed.”(Qur’an 3:44)
﷽
“This is the Book in which there is no doubt, a guide for the righteous. Those who believe in the unseen, and perform the prayers, and give from what We have provided for them. And those who believe in what was revealed to you, and in what was revealed before you, and are certain of the Hereafter.” (Qur’an 2:3-4)
The Qur’an is a book of which there is no doubt. It is for those who believe in the unseen. It is for those who are certain in the life to come. It is for those who believe in what was revealed before the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Those who are skeptical of those points will quite naturally arrive at different conclusions. So that is of no consequence for the believer.
“As for those who persist in disbelief, it is the same whether you warn them or not—they will never believe. Allah has sealed their hearts and their hearing, and their sight is covered. They will suffer a tremendous punishment.” (Qur’an 2:6-7)
Now, historians and orientalists cannot speak of the supernatural as these are matters of belief. They are beyond their point of historical investigation. However, we are always thrilled when we find historians and Orientalists corroborating the testimony of narratives in the Qur’an by finding manuscripts or parchments of information that, though not verbatim, closely mimic what Allah (swt) has revealed before. This is the understanding of the believer.
Do we find some information from various cultures that preceded the coming of the Blessed Prophet (saw) that seems to corroborate the beliefs of Islam? Yes! That is not scary! That is exciting!
Recall what Allah (swt) himself informed us of:
“We surely sent a messenger to every community, saying, “Worship Allah and shun false gods.” But some of them were guided by Allah, while others were destined to stray. So travel throughout the land and see the fate of the deniers!” (Qur’an 16:36)
Remember we are not responsible for the conclusions or perceptions of others.
If we look at the above graph. We can see that in block B the apparent (the dhahir) is that there are parchments, manuscripts, scrolls, oral traditions, inscriptions etc. that come before the Qur’an. However, when we look at block B, the haqiqah (the reality) is that Allah’s knowledge of what really happened precedes the information in B.Because of that reality, what is in C (The Qur’an) actually precedes the information in B. This is precisely why this hobbyhorse of orientalist and those who use the historical critical method is of absolutely no consequence for the believing Muslim.
We Muslims have been the first critics of our own sources. The clash of historical narratives between the Ibadi, Sunni and Shi’a is proof positive of this. The grading of the ahadith and the mention of variants in the transmission of the Qur’an have not come from people who lost faith, agnostics or atheists. They came from us, as believers. Subhan’Allah!
These other Johnny Come Lately types, HCM, etc., welcome to the party!
History and Miracles.
We don’t believe that miracles are historical. This does not mean that we do not believe that miracles did not happen. We just don’t believe that history can capture them.
Case in point: An Indian king, Cheraman Perumal, was reported to have seen the moon split. History can report such data, but it does not necessarily confirm nor interpret the data.
This particular entry is directed towards Christians. It is rather shameful that they have taken the approach that they have in these matters. Given that they too claim to believe in the unseen. They claim to believe in a Creator that can narrate past events that present people were not privy to.
“Then she brought him to her people, carrying him. They said, “O Mary, you have certainly done a thing unprecedented. O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste.”But she pointed to the babe. They said: “How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?” He said: “I am indeed a servant of Allah: He has given me revelation and made me a prophet; And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I will be and has enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live; He has made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable; So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)”! Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.”(Qur’an 19:27-34)
“When Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, remember My favor upon you and upon your mother when I supported you with the Pure Spirit and you spoke to the people in the cradle and in maturity; and [remember] when I taught you writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and when you designed from clay like the form of a bird with My permission, then you breathed into it, and it became a bird with My permission, and you healed the blind and the leper with My permission; and when you brought forth the dead with My permission; and when I restrained the Children of Israel from [killing] you when you came to them with clear proofs and those who disbelieved among them said, “This is not but obvious magic.”(Qur’an 5:110)
“And a messenger to the Children of Israel, who will say, ‘Indeed I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I design for you from clay like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by permission of Allah. And I cure the blind and the leper, and I give life to the dead – by permission of Allah. And I inform you of what you eat and what you store in your houses. Indeed in that is a sign for you, if you are believers.” (Qur’an 3:49)
Prima Qur’an comments:
In this article, we will give a response to those Christians who use as a polemic against Muslims the claim that the Qur’an contains apocryphal material in it and therefore cannot be a revelation from Allah (swt).
Now, of course, they will claim that there are more than the three verses of the Qur’an we quoted above as being from apocryphal material. However, we have chosen to focus on these three, as they are most often used by Christian polemicists in debates with Muslims.
Now, personally, we find this particular line of Christian attack against Islam amusing. However, they have to eventually come up with something, right?
Now let’s look at and listen carefully to what these Christians are actually disputing with us about.
*Note*
They are not raising the issue of “healing the blind.“
They are not raising issues against “curing people affected by leprosy.”
They are not raising issues against “give life to the dead.”
They are not disputing these points because they are miracles attributed to Christ Jesus that they find in their accepted canonical text. We will come to the term canonical in a moment.
What they are disputing is:
Jesus speaking as an infant
Jesus creating birds out of clay
Why do they dispute about these miracles?
Because they are not in what they accept to be their canonical text.
So what do the terms apocryphal and canonical mean?
Canonical in relation to Christian scriptures means:
“A biblical canon or canon of scripture is a set of texts (or “books”) which a particular religious community regards as authoritative scripture. … Believers consider canonical books as inspired by God or as expressive of the authoritative history of the relationship between God and his people.”
Apocryphal in relation to Christian scriptures means:
“Biblical or related writings not forming part of the accepted canon of Scripture; or writings or reports not considered genuine.”
So, if a Christian were to come to us and say that these statements in the Qur’an are found in apocryphal sources, the first thing you have to keep in mind that what they are actually saying isthat it is apocryphal according to their particular sect of Christianity!
The reason that is important is as follows: As we write this to you on 11/4/2024, Christendom has still not settled the issue of what is and is not apocryphal for the whole of Christianity.
Glaring examples are the following:
Depending on how you want to word it, you could say that the Protestants have 7 fewer books in their version of the Old Testament. Or you could say that the Roman Catholics have 7 extra books in their Old Testament that they accept to be inspired and not apocryphal.
Yet the Orthodox Church has additional Old Testament texts (or if you want to be neutral, the Protestants and Catholics have less). The same can be said for the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
The same goes for the New Testament.
What is canonical is an issue that is still not settled among them.
The Chaldean Syrian Church does not accept the following as canon:
In fact, many Protestant Christians have declared Mark 16:8-20, & John 7:53–8:11 to not be canonical.
You have to wonder about the Protestant Christian theologians like John Calvin, Martin Luther, and others who most likely held such passages to be canonical. Yet there are Christians who do not agree with the idea that such passages are non-canonical. These Christians very much believe that Mark 16:8-20, &John 7:53–8:11 are inspired scripture.
So what is the point that is being made?
The point is that when a Christian says to us that those verses in the Qur’an are allegedly taken from apocryphal sources, it is important to understand that:
That though it may be apocryphal for that particular Christian, we can’t say for certain that it was apocryphal for the other Christians.
To keep in mind that what is and is not apocryphal has been and continues to be an internal dispute among Christians.
If the Christian is to counter by saying, “Can you name for me any Christian denomination today that accepts such and such text as canonical?”
The answer to that is: “No we can’t.” Many Christian sects and denominations over time have long perished. Most often the information we do have about them comes from their opponents.
What is also interesting, and we hope Muslims reading this bear in mind, is that no Christian committed to a consistent world view in which the supernatural happens can tell us that:
Jesus did not speak as an infant.
Jesus did not create birds out of clay.
This assertion is also supported by the text they accept as canon. Namely, the following:
“And Jesus did many other miracles in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book: But these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name” (John 20:30-31).
Prima Qur’an comments:
Now this writer, apparently inspired by Allah, felt that it was necessary to inform his readers that Jesus did many other miracles that are not contained within this book.
“There are many more things that Jesus did. If all of them were written down, I suppose that not even the world itself would have space for the books that would be written.” (John 21:25)
Prima Qur’an comments: Though we can all agree this statement is hyperbole, yet it is obvious that the writer knew that there was much more information about Jesus that could be shared.
Now, a possible Christian objection to our understanding of John 20:30-31 is that ‘the many other miracles that are not present in this book‘ could only be a reference to the miracles listed in Matthew, Mark, Luke that are not in the Gospel according to John.
The response to this is that it is simply an assumption.
It could be that:
It could be a reference only to the miracles present in Matthew, Mark, Luke that are not in the Gospel, according to John.
It could be a reference to miracles that are not present in any of those Gospel accounts.
It could be a reference to miracles present in Matthew, Mark, Luke as well as those not present in any Gospel accounts.
Christians could well ask: “Why wouldn’t these accounts of Jesus speaking as an infant or making birds out of clay make it into any of the Four Gospels commonly accepted among all of Christendom?”
Well, we have a clue about that from a text we have already mentioned.
“And Jesus did many other miracles in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name” (John 20:30-31).
Prima Qur’an comments: This Gospel writer is telling us that he is informed about other miracles, but the seven particular miracles that he has selected is so that we may believe that Jesus is:
The Christ
The Son of God
Having eternal life through his name.
So, in the example of this Gospel writer, we have the reasons plainly stated why some miracles were chosen over others. Whereas for the other Gospels it’s hard to discern why they may have left out certain miracles.
For example, John’s Gospel includes the story of Lazarus rising from the dead. I’m puzzled why such an awesome event is not recorded by the other Gospels. Or Jesus turning water into wine is only included in the Gospel, according to John.
Equally puzzling is the following awesome account, which is not recorded by any ancient documents outside of Matthew itself.
“And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, ‘Truly this was the Son of God’” (Matthew. 27:51-54).
There are no extra-biblical sources that mention this awesome event. Surely witnessing such an event would have been worthy of mention somewhere. In fact, this particular text created controversy even among conservative Christians when New Testament scholar and associate professor of theology Michael Licona raised questions about this text.
You can read about where Christians have done some damage control concerning this at the following:
So, again, going back to the Christian inquiry into why some awesome and miraculous events are recorded by some sources and not others, we can only surmise as to the motives behind this.
Why is it that Jesus speaking as an infant is recorded in some sources and not others?
Why is that Jesus making birds out of clay recorded in some sources and not others?
Why is it that the Gospel of Mark is now considered not to have a resurrection narrative, but other sources have it?
Why is it that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead from some sources and not others?
Why is it that Jesus turned water into wine from some sources and not others?
Why is that only the Gospel of Matthew has this narrative about the mass resurrections of people appearing to many in the city?
Another interesting point to note is that, in the case of the Christian tradition that many of us will encounter today, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants of many types, we have 30 years of the life of Christ Jesus that is completely missing altogether!
“Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli.” (Luke 3:23)
So imagine all the people who needed to be healed, those who needed salvation, and what does the current Christian canon tell us about the early life of Jesus? Its silence about the early life of Jesus is awkward, to say the least.
It is honestly both shocking and disappointing that Christians would use these types of arguments against the Qur’an. It absolutely reeks of atheism, smacks of radical skepticism, and is stepped in a worldview bereft of the supernatural.
For us, as Muslims, we are informed about what happened concerning Jesus through divine revelation. As Allah (swt) says to the Blessed Messenger (saw):
“That is from the news of the unseen which We reveal to you. And you were not with them when they cast their pens as to which of them should be responsible for Mary. Nor were you with them when they disputed.” (Qur’an 3:44)
Also, notice that when the Christians make their particular claim about the Qur’an, they more often than not do present the sources which they claim the Qur’an takes the following from:
Speaking as an infant.
Creating birds out of clay.
We also find it interesting that Muslims don’t ask them for their sources.
The Christian polemicist usually has two sources in mind for this:
Those sources are: The Infancy Gospel of Thomas & The Protoevangelium of James.
“This little child Jesus when he was five years old was playing at the ford of a brook: and he gathered together the waters that flowed there into pools, and made them straightway clean, and commanded them by his word alone. 2 And having made soft clay, he fashioned thereof twelve sparrows. And it was the Sabbath when he did these things (or made them). And there were also many other little children playing with him.
“And a certain Jew when he saw what Jesus did, playing upon the Sabbath day, departed straightway and told his father Joseph: Lo, your child is at the brook, and he has taken clay and fashioned twelve little birds and has polluted the Sabbath day. 4 And Joseph came to the place and saw: and cried out to him, saying: Why are you doing these things on the Sabbath, which it is not lawful to do? But Jesus clapped his hands together and cried out to the sparrows and said to them: Go! and the sparrows took their flight and went away chirping. 5 And when the Jews saw it they were amazed, and departed and told their chief men that which they had seen Jesus do.”
Source: (Infancy Gospel of Thomas Chapter 2:1-5)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
This narrative speaks about Jesus creating 12 birds. The emphasis on the number 12 is there twice. This must relate to the 12 disciples. Whereas in the Qur’an we find no mention of this.
“Indeed I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I design for you from clay like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by permission of Allah.” (Qur’an 3:49)
There is no mention of Jesus doing this act on the Sabbath Day. There is no mention of Jesus creating 12 birds. It is interesting to note that the Qur’andoes not name the number of Jesus’ disciples. Christians have not addressed this.
It would be interesting to know where the writer(s) of the ‘Infancy Gospel of Thomas’ got their information from. The earliest possible date of authorship is 80 A. D to 250 A. D. This is also roughly the time that the date of authorship is ascribed to ‘The Epistle to Titus‘, which is considered canonical by Christians today. These scholars date the epistle from the 80 A. D up to the end of the 250 A. D.
Source: (Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible, p. 662)
“And when Jesus was five years old, there fell a great rain upon the earth, and the boy Jesus walked up and down through it. And there was a terrible rain, and He collected it into a fish-pond, and ordered it by His word to become clear. And immediately it became so. Again He took of the clay which was of that fish-pond, and made of it to the number of twelve sparrows. And it was the Sabbath when Jesus did this among the boys of the Jews. And the boys of the Jews went away and said to Joseph His father: Behold, thy son was playing along with us, and he took clay and made sparrows, which it was not lawful to do on the Sabbath; and he has broken it. And Joseph went away to the boy Jesus, and said to Him: Why have you done this, which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath? And Jesus opened His hands, and ordered the sparrows, saying: Go up into the air and fly; nobody shall kill you. And they flew, and began to cry out, and praise God Almighty. And the Jews seeing what had happened, wondered, and went away and told the miracles which Jesus had done.”
Source: (Infancy Gospel of Thomas Chapter 4)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
This story is very similar to the one in the ‘Infancy Gospel of Thomas’. What becomes apparent is that both of these sources are relying upon some oral tradition–one in which does not have a chain of transmission.
Now here is what is interesting about the Protoevangelion Jacobi or Infancy Gospel of James. One of the Christian polemicists that used this type of attack upon the Qur’anwas himself put in a difficult position in relation to this text.
@19:20 Ehrman asks: “What other documents are found in P72 as this is a document that resonates with you?”
James responds, “There are some non-canonical documents in P72 …
Ehrman replies, “Right, so I am just wondering about you resonating with this document”. Do you think that the scribe thought what he was copying was scripture?“
James, “Well, I don’t think you can simply jump to the conclusion that, because scribes included books in a single codex that they believed that everything within that codex was necessarily scripture.” There are sorts of works that were considered to be beneficial to people that were included in codices that were not necessarily canonical.”
Ehrman, “Yeah, I just think that it was odd that that particular manuscript was one that you resonated with because it’s the earliest attestation that we have of the protoevangelium jacobi.” (The Infancy Gospel of James) ..
Prima Qur’an Comments:
In other words, you can’t know for certain if the scribe who was copying this text (obviously from an even earlier source) was transcribing what he thought was divine writing! Especially in light of the fact that it is in the same genre of manuscripts that are generally described as “the most significant” papyrus of the New Testament to be discovered so far.
“Now, when the Lord Jesus had completed seven years from His birth, on a certain day He was occupied with boys of His own age. For they were playing among clay, from which they were making images of asses, oxen, birds, and other animals; and each one boasting of his skill, was praising his own work. Then the Lord Jesus said to the boys: The images that I have made I will order to walk. The boys asked Him whether then he was the son of the Creator, and the Lord Jesus made them walk. And they immediately began to leap; and then, when He had given them leave, they again stood still. And He had made figures of birds and sparrows, which flew when He told them to fly, and stood still when He told them to stand, and ate and drank when He handed them food and drink. After the boys had gone away and told this to their parents, their fathers said to them: My sons, take care not to keep company with him again, for he is a wizard: flee from him, therefore, and avoid him, and do not play with him again after this.”
Source: (The Arabic Infancy Gospel of Jesus)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
This text has Jesus not only making birdsbut apparently donkeys, oxen, and other (undisclosed) animals out of clay. There is an inquiry about him being the son of the Creator. There is no mention of the sabbath or any mention of the animals being of any number.
It’s thought that this Gospel has its origins in Syriac sources in the 5th or 6th century.
“We find what follows in the book of Joseph the high priest, who lived in the time of Christ. Some say that he is Caiaphas. He has said that Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when he was lying in His cradle, said to Mary His mother: “I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom you have brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to you; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world.”
Source: (The Arabic Infancy Gospel of Jesus).
Prima Qur’an Comments:
There is no mention of Mary carrying Jesus as a baby. There is no mention of the people asking Mary where this baby came from. This text has Jesus addressing his mother, the Qur’an has him addressing the people. The text above is filled with Christian doctrine: Jesus is the Son of God, he has a ‘Father’ and he was sent for the salvation of the world.
None of this is found in the account of the Qur’an.
Conclusion:
The attacks that Christian polemicists have leveled towards the Qur’anare the kind one would expect from radical skepticism, and a worldview bereft of the supernatural.
We can see that these sources the Christians point to have important details and radically different theological statements that we do not find at all within the Qur’an.
More telling is that Christians do not even quote these sources, or give the details of the accounts. Many of the people they speak to will not go and double-check the sources for themselves.
The fact that some Christians find these sources apocryphal is of no concern to us as Muslims. We as Muslims do not rely upon them or accept them as revelation either. Our acceptance of what is stated in the Qur’an comes from our faith in it as divine revelation and in what Allah (swt) himself has stated:
“That is from the news of the unseen which We reveal to you. And you were not with them when they cast their pens as to which of them should be responsible for Mary. Nor were you with them when they disputed.” (Qur’an 3:44)
Just as our faith in Jesus as the Messiah, the Word of Allah, and the Son of Mary are not dependent upon any book of the New Testament (even if the whole of Christendom) accepts it as canonical.
Christians themselves cannot totally rule out the possibility of Jesus having spoken as an infant or having given life to the clay birds based upon the following evidence:
“And Jesus did many other miracles in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name” (John 20:30-31).
As well as the fact that the Gospel writers themselves have admitted to leaving out particular miracles that did not suit their desired goals.
“The truth is from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.”(Qur’an 2:147)
“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.” (Qur’an 5:83)
May Allah (swt) guide the truth seekers!
If you enjoyed this article you may enjoy the following:
“At that, Zechariah called upon his Lord, saying, “My Lord, grant me from Yourself a good offspring. Indeed, You are the Hearer of supplication.” So the angels called him while he was standing in prayer in the chamber, “Indeed, Allah gives you good tidings of John, confirming a word from Allah and [who will be] honorable, abstaining, and a prophet from among the righteous.” He said, “My Lord, how will I have a boy when I have reached old age and my wife is barren?” The angel said, “Such is Allah; He does what He wills.” He said, “My Lord, make for me a sign.” He said, “Your sign is that you will not [be able to] speak to the people for three days except by gesture. And remember your Lord much and exalt [Him with praise] in the evening and the morning.” And [mention] when the angels said, “O Mary, indeed Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women of the worlds. O Mary, be devoutly obedient to your Lord and prostrate and bow with those who bow [in prayer].” That is from the news of the unseen which We reveal to you, [O Muhammed]. And you were not with them when they cast their pens as to which of them should be responsible for Mary. Nor were you with them when they disputed. [And mention] when the angels said, “O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary – distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah]. He will speak to the people in the cradle and in maturity and will be of the righteous.” She said, “My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?” The angel said, “Such is Allah; He creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is. And He will teach him writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel. And [make him] a messenger to the Children of Israel, [who will say], ‘Indeed I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I design for you from clay like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by permission of Allah. And I cure the blind and the leper, and I give life to the dead – by permission of Allah. And I inform you of what you eat and what you store in your houses. Indeed in that is a sign for you, if you are believers.’” (Qur’an 3:38-49)
﷽
The Case for the Virgin Birth of Jesus – peace be upon him.
“Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created him from dust; then He said to him, ‘Be,’ and he was.” (Qur’an 3:59)
“And remember her who guarded her farjaha (vagina): We breathed into her of Our Spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples.” (Qur’an 21:91)
“And We made the son of Mary and his mother a sign and sheltered them within a high ground having level [areas] and flowing water.” (Qur’an 23:50)
“And Mary, the daughter of ‘Imran, who guarded her farjaha (vagina) in chastity, so We blew into it of Our Spirit, and she believed in the words of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient.” (Qur’an 66:12)
“And mention, in the Book, the story of Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place toward the east. And she took, in seclusion from them, a screen. Then We sent to her Our Angel, and he represented himself to her as a well-proportioned man. She said, ‘Indeed, I seek refuge in the Most Merciful from you if you should be fearing of Allah.’ He said, ‘I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you news of a pure boy.’ She said, ‘How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?’ He said, ‘Your Lord says, “It is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter [already] decreed.”’ (Qur’an 19:16-21)
“And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm tree. She said, ‘Oh, I wish I had died before this and was in oblivion, forgotten.’ But he called her from below her, ‘Do not grieve; your Lord has provided beneath you a stream. And shake toward you the trunk of the palm tree; it will drop upon you ripe, fresh dates. So eat and drink and be contented. And if you see from among humanity anyone, say, “Indeed, I have vowed to the Most Merciful abstention, so I will not speak today to any man.”’ Then she brought him to her people (tahmiluhu), carrying him. They said, ‘O Mary, you have certainly brought forth a fabricated lie. O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste.’ So she pointed to him. They said, ‘How can we speak to one who is in the (l-mahdi) cradle?’ Jesus said, ‘Indeed, I am the servant of Allah. He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet.’” (Qur’an 19:23-30)
“That is Jesus, the son of Mary – the word of truth about which they are in dispute. It is not for Allah to take a son; exalted is He! When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is.” (Qur’an 19:34-35)
“When Allah will say, ‘O Jesus, Son of Mary, remember My favor upon you and upon your mother when I supported you with the Pure Spirit and you spoke to the people in the cradle and in maturity…’” (Qur’an 5:110)
So there are a number of issues for any Muslim who wants to deny the virgin birth of Jesus to contend with the following:
Any Muslim who wants to deny the virgin birth of Jesus should do so by using proofs and evidence based upon the Qur’an.
Any Muslim who wants to deny the virgin birth of Jesus should not give us ‘should have,’ ‘could have,’ and ‘would have’ been scenarios. In other words, do not add your own narrative. Don’t just make things up as you go along, but give us the text and make your case.
From the Qur’an, tell us why the Qur’an addresses Jesus time and again as ‘Jesus the son of Mary.’ Why not address Jesus by the name of his father… if any?
From the Qur’an, tell us why would Allah (swt) need to repudiate people who claim He has a son (in connection with Mary) if there were not miraculous circumstances surrounding her birth?
If Mary did not have a miraculous birth, when the angel comes to her announcing that she will have a child, Mary responds ‘that no man has touched her.’ Why does the angel give the very queer response of,‘It’s easy for Me’and ‘Such is Allah; He creates what He wills’? It is such a very queer response to give to someone whom Allah (swt) simply intends to marry a man.
After childbirth, how do you account for the statement, “But he called her from below her”?
If the person rejects the idea of Jesus speaking as an infant (which they obviously do as they reject miracles), ask them to explain what is meant by “she brought him to her people (tahmiluhu), carrying him.”
On the basis of the Qur’anic text, why would Mary need to be carrying Jesus anyway (if he was not an infant)?
If Jesus wasn’t an infant when he was speaking, then how do you account for the following text: “How can we speak to one who is in the (l-mahdi) cradle?”
If you are going to say that Jesus wasn’t an infant when he spoke, then why the objection to begin with? Why couldn’t they speak to a child/pre-teen/teenager?
If Mary was already married and it was widely known, then why this curious outburst from the people? “O Mary, you have certainly brought forth a fabricated lie. O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste.”
If the answer to point 11 above is because they didn’t know she was married, then why point to Jesus?
If the answer to point 11 above is because they didn’t know she was married and Jesus is a child/pre-teen/teenager, why didn’t he simply respond, “Yeah, my mom got married — sorry we didn’t invite you to the walimah!”
Why did Mary point to Jesus at all? If a person believes that Jesus was a child/pre-teen/teenager, it means there was a lapse of time after childbirth. Zechariah was commanded to refrain from speaking for three days; are we to believe that Mary didn’t speak to anyone for 6-9 years?
Given that Allah (swt) calls Jesus the son of Mary and repudiates Christians who claim that Jesus is the ‘Son of Allah’ in the same context, why not simply mention the father of Jesus?
Why is the birth of Jesus given such intimate attention if it was a normal birth like anyone else?
Why were early Muslim commentators like Al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir so bashful over the verses such as 21:91 and 66:12 above?
Why did Allah (swt) use such graphic terminology about blowing His spirit into Mary’s private parts if it was just a normal, run-of-the-mill birth? Seems a bit much for an uneventful birth.
So these are the issues that Muslims who do not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus are going to have to address.
Even one of the most rationalist movements—one that generally downplays or reinterprets miracles—still affirms the virgin birth of Jesus as a literal, historical fact based on the Qur’an
The Ahmadiyya movement, founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in 19th-century India, is known for its rationalist and naturalistic approach to many miracles.
However, on the virgin birth of Jesus, they do not apply this rationalist lens. Ahmadiyya theology explicitly affirms that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary without a human father, as a direct creative act of Allah. Their founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, wrote:
“We believe that Mary became pregnant with Jesus without the intervention of a man, as the Qur’an clearly states: ‘She said, “My Lord, how can I have a child when no man has touched me?” He said, “Thus Allah creates what He wills.” Source: (Chashma-e-Masihi, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 20, p. 249)
Even a group famous for rationalizing miracles concedes that the Qur’anic text cannot be read any other way when it comes to Mary’s virgin conception.
Conclusion
The overwhelming evidence is that Jesus was born of a virgin. Those who deny this are going to have to deny the clear text of the Qur’an. They will have to add to the text or, worse, manipulate the text to say what it does not say.
You may be interested in reading the following articles:
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can God have a child, when He did not have a wife?” (Qur’an 6:101)
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion” (Qur’an 6:101)
﷽
Ultimately the rejection of the Virgin birth of Christ Jesus is not due to any plain reading of the Qur’an. It is due to aprior belief that some how miracles violate laws of causality.
Muhammed Asad was of this view. Notice how he deals with the text of the Qur’an that talks about Jesus creating the clay birds.
“And [will make him] an apostle unto the children of Israel.” “I have come unto you with a message from your Sustainer. I shall create for you out of clay, as it were, the shape of [your] destiny, and then breathe into it, so that it might become [your] destiny by God’s leave; and I shall heal the blind and the leper, and bring the dead back to life by God’s leave; and I shall let you know what you may eat and what you should store up in your houses. Behold, in all this there is indeed a message for you, if you are [truly] believers.” (Qur’an 3:49)
One may think he mentioned healing the blind, the leper and bringing the dead back to life. However, in this frame work Jesus heals the spiritually blind, and the spiritually sick and spiritually brings dead hearts back to life.
“The sunnah of Allah with those who passed on before; and you will not find in the sunnah of Allah any change.” (Qur’an 33:62)
“No change will you find in Allah’s Sunnah, and no turning off will you find in Allah’s Sunnah.” (Qur’an 35:43)
The above verses are often appealed to at the very least ground the argument in something textual. Which is certainly appreciated. However, these same people believe that Allah (swt) created the first thing he created directly. Yet, after that they have two options.
Option 1: Allah Creates Everything Directly.Meaning he has willed what the state of any given thing will be at any particular time. If Allah’s Sunnah requires that every effect has a prior physical cause, then the first created thing had no prior physical cause. This means Allah willed what state a particular thing would be at any given time.
But if Allah can create the first thing directly—violating the supposed “rule” that every effect needs a prior physical cause—then He can create anything directly at any time.
This includes:
Creating Jesus without a father.
Creating a snake from a staff.
Creating life from clay.
Conclusion: Miracles are not violations of Allah’s Sunnah. They are direct acts of Allah, just like the original creation.
Option 2: Allah Creates Through an Intermediary Chain. If you insist that Allah never creates directly but always through a chain of causes and effects, then you face an infinite regress:
Who created the first cause?
And who created the cause of that cause?
To avoid infinite regress, you must eventually arrive at a first cause that creates directly—which is Option 1.
Alternatively, if you say the chain is eternal (no first cause), that is philosophical nonsense (and shirk, as it implies an uncreated universe alongside Allah).
The Neoplatontonic Trap. If miracle-deniers insist that Allah never creates directly but only through intermediaries, they fall into a Neoplatonic emanationist framework:
A series of intelligences or spheres that mediate creation.
The “First Intellect” emanates from Allah, then creates the next, and so on.
This effectively creates demi-gods—intermediary creators.
This is shirk because it attributes creative power to beings other than Allah. The Qur’an is clear:
“Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is, over all things, Disposer of affairs.” (Qur’an 39:62)
“Is there any creator other than Allah who provides for you from the heaven and earth?” (Qur’an 35:3)
Allah created the first thing directly, without any prior cause. This act of direct creation is itself the origin of Allah’s Sunnah, not a violation of it. Allah may choose what state or conditoin anything will be in at any given time-what are called miracles. They do not change Allah’s Sunnah; they are expressions of His absolute power to create as He wills.
The verse that our opponents use (Qur’an 35:43) actually proves our position.
The verse speaks of Allah’s sunnah in dealing with arrogant nations—His pattern of sending messengers, giving them time to repent, and then punishing them if they persist in evil. This has nothing to do with physical causality.
They are committing category error by taking a verse about divine justice and applying it to physics. The “no change” in Allah’s Sunnah refers to His moral and historical patterns—not to whether He can create a fatherless child.
This article will be addressing points that Mufti Abu Layth made in regards to the ‘Virgin birth of Jesus’. We should say that, for the most part, We disagree with Mufti Abu Layth on few issues. He was willing to make himself accessible to the general public and found favour among some Muslim youth. Many of those Muslim youth were reconsidering their own convictions about Islam. For that effort and ijtihad, surely his reward is with Allah.
However, We don’t really feel that this article is a refutation of points raised by Mufti Abu Layth at all. That is because to those who pay attention to detail will find that these are in reality not arguments presented by Mufti Abu Layth.
Another article that We wrote was in agreement with Mufti Abu Layth on the issue of the ‘Second coming of Jesus’. Yet, even in that article We pointed out that perhaps Mufti Abu Layth may have some misgivings about the Christian tradition.
@40:12 ” The second coming of Jesus is so important in Christianity. It perhaps is the second most important belief in Christianity. It is on the back of this belief that Christianity rose. If you don’t believe me go do your research. Because…the…believe it or not things like the virgin birth…Jesus uh uh Mary having a virgin birth are actually not that important in Christianity. Contrary to what many people think. They’re actually not, hence many early Christians did not even believe in that. The Gospel of Matthew doesn’t accept the virgin birth. The uh St. Paul didn’t even accept things like that. It was only 2-300 years after Jesus that the Christian Church made the virgin birth as part of its belief. But this, Jesus coming back was so important for Christianity.”
There are in our opinion some problematic statements in the aforementioned.
Mufti Abu Layth has said: “It perhaps is the second most important belief in Christianity.” Not even close. In fairness he did say, “perhaps.”
Mufti Abu Layth has said: ”It is on the back of this belief that Christianity rose. “
Perhaps he misspoke here. Or perhaps We misunderstood him.
We have to believe that he did, because it doesn’t even make any sense. How does an belief in the second coming of Jesus become the bedrock and foundation of Christianity?
Christianity would have to be established first before you could even know what its basic doctrines even are! In other words Jesus has to be credible the first time around before We can even start talking about him returning. We have to believe he misspoke here. Or perhaps We misunderstood his point.
Mufti Abu Layth has said: “Things like the virgin birth…Jesus uh uh Mary having a virgin birth are actually not that important in Christianity.“
Mufti Abu Layth couldn’t make this claim to any reputable Christian scholar, without being taken to task for it. The immaculate conception of Christ Jesus, his nature, the nature of his birth, the prophecies concerning his birth are of utmost importance to the Christian faith tradition.
Mufti Abu Layth has said: “Contrary to what many people think. They’re actually not, hence many early Christians did not even believe in that. “
From that it follows We may inquire:
Which early Christians didn’t believe in the virgin birth?
What are your sources?
Whom are you relying upon for this information?
Mufti Abu Layth has said: “The Gospel of Matthew doesn’t accept the virgin birth.“
The response to that is: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” (Matthew 1:23)
Mufti Abu Layth has said: “ The uh St. Paul didn’t even accept things like that.”
This claim is being made on the basis of what?
What text?
What source?
We would be willing to respectfully suggest to him that Perhaps he had Galatians 4:4 or Romans 1:3 in mind?
Mufti Abu Layth has said: It was only 200-300 years after Jesus that the Christian Church made the virgin birth as part of its belief.”
Ourresponse: That is not accurate.Not even close. In fact, it is a belief of Muslims as well.
You can see the evidence for it being a belief of Muslims here:
The actual evidences that are brought to reject the virgin birth of Christ Jesus.
Now, let us turn our attention to his statements concerning the Qur’an and this matter.
So please see what Mufti Abu Layth has said on the subject here:
So this is the video that is titled: “Does the Qur’an Mention a Virgin Birth for Jesus?” Mufti Abu Layth lays out his view, his proofs and justifications.
So where do We begin with the 20 minutes and 21 seconds that have been allotted to this subject by Mufti Abu Layth?
Well, the beginning of course!
Allow us to preface by saying that We do not think that people are unbelievers for saying that Jesus the son of Mary was conceived through a father and mother. We certainly don’t believe that.
We will say this though, something has to be said about combing through the mountain of scholarship that exists across the Shia/Sunni/Ibadi communities and coming up with two names; both of whom which are anonymous and not given to us.
Now, just because We may not have heard of these people does that mean anything bad? No, it is simply a demonstration of my ignorance and those of us who have never heard of them. However, the absolute, overwhelming, tsunami of scholarship across sectarian lines in Islam is that Jesus the son of Mary was born of a virgin. That being said We agree with Mufti Abu Layth that truth is not a democracy.
Truth is truth and it stands or falls based upon the veracity and scrutiny of it’s own claims.
We would also add that it is the theological view of Mufti Abu Layth in denying miracles that is what drives him to impose this view upon the text. After all, if you are going to deny miracles taking place you are either all in or all out.
That has been a particular view held by some Muslims in Islamic history, namely that miracles violate the laws of causality.
An interesting thought experiment in regards to the available text.
What would be interesting as a social experiment would be to find a group of people, who are not Muslims and who are not privy to these discussions in Islam and give them all the relevant text on the subject and after they read the text to ask them the following:
Based upon the available data in the text you read do you believe that the text teaches that Jesus was born miraculously and/or from a virgin birth?
Based upon the available data in the text you read do you believe that the text teaches that Mary got married and she conceived Jesus through a natural process?
That would be most intriguing.
Mufti Abu Layth @0:35 makes an astonishing claim in the beginning. He says that the language of the Qur’an is quite interesting and that it is styled in a way that no Muslim believes about Jesus the son of Mary.
Our response: We certainly believe that Jesus is a word proceeding from Allah (swt). We certainly believe that Jesus is a spirit proceeding from Allah (swt).
Mufti Abu Layth claims that ‘That it is styled in a way that no Muslim believes about Jesus’ that claim of his is patently false.
Certainly what our respected brother Mufti Abu Layth has said is factually incorrect.
In fact, We are telling you in all our years and exposure to Islam and Muslims, and an array of opinions and perspectives this is the very first time We are seeing any Muslim raise an objection. So it is quite the opposite of what he claimed.
@0:38 Mufti Abu Layth says, “For example, Jesus is referred to on more than one occasion in the Qur’an as ‘The word of God’, now that doesn’t resonate with Muslims.”
Again, this is absolute news to us. That it does not resonate with Muslims?
Yet, it is a curiosity that he chose to render the text as ‘The word of God‘?
@0:56 Mufti Abu Layth We feel he meant to quote Qur’an 3:45 and not 3:43 but he quotes:
“Allah says, when giving glad tidings to Mary that she had received bi kalimatin min’hu (of the word coming from God) us’muhu l-masīḥu ʿīsā ub’nu maryama (the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary).”
Comment: Notice that Mufti Abu Layth himself translates as “the word coming from God.” We didn’t tell him to do that. No one else told him to do that either.
@1:20 Mufti Abu Layth continues: “In another verse surah al Nisa 170 (4:170) innamā l-masīḥu ʿīsā ub’nu maryama rasūlu l-lahi wakali (that Jesus is the messenger of God and his Word which he sent down or threw down onto Mary, and the Spirit of God)warūḥun min (once again what are these words. No Muslim really believes this about Jesus. If you want to accept literal no Muslim believes that.”
Comment: Notice that Mufti Abu Layth himself translates “his word which he sent down.” We didn’t tell him to do that. No one else told him to do that either.
@1:54 Mufti Abu Layth continues: “You see this is very very like in the Gospel of John that in the beginning there was the you know the the in the beginning there was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God.”
Mufti Abu Layth has stated: @0:38 “For example Jesus is referred to on more than one occasion in the Qur’an as ‘the word of God‘, now that doesn’t resonate with Muslims.”
He says that the Qur’an says on more than one occasion Jesus is called, ‘the word of God’ but he himself didn’t give us one example of this. Instead, he himself translated the text as ‘his word sent down’ and ‘word coming from God.’
If Mufti Abu Layth doesn’t know the vast theological difference between the Qur’anic concept of Jesus as ‘a word proceeding from Allah’ (swt) and the Christian idea of the Word being the Logos than he might want to take some time to read up on and research these matters.
“Kalimatullah” is an honorific title given most likely by the Sunni Muslim tradition to Jesus the son of Mary. However, We haven’t personally seen the Qur’an refer to Jesus as ‘The Word of Allah’. We have no idea where Mufti Abu Layth derived that from.
The concept put forth in the prologue of the Gospel according to John, the Christian understanding of Jesus as the Logos is understood by the following text:
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.”—(Colossians 1:15–16)
There is no theological school among Muslims (that We are aware of) that comes even remotely close to such an understanding of Jesus role as ‘word’.
However, if Jesus is not understood as the Created word of Allah than this indeed is problematic. If this is the point that Mufti Abu Layth is driving home than he and us are of one accord.
For example is statement here @2:03 with:
“And as Muslims, IF you believe that ‘the word of God’ is uncreated than by that it follows almost ties into Jesus being uncreated.”
This point Mufti Abu Layth is echoing comes from those of us who do not believe that the Qur’an is uncreated. The Qur’an is created.
We do recall a brother sending us a clip of Mufti Abu Layth claiming that this theological controversy surrounding the Qur’an was a non-issue. However, We can see by the point that he has raised by those us who do not believe the Qur’an to be eternal, that it is an issue.
In fact, We think it would be great if Mufti Abu Layth cleared up for us what his position is on this issue. Does Mufti Abu Layth believe that the Qur’an is eternal and uncreated or does he believe it is created? He certainly hasn’t been shy from controversy in the past so why not make this stance clear?
Mufti Abu Layth says, @2:17, “Now Muslims will say oh by ‘the word of God’ here We just mean he was a miracle. No, but that word of God isn’t used for any other prophet.”
Our comments:
We think Mufti Abu Layth is making a non-argument. We are certainly not in the habit of calling Jesus, ‘the word of God.’
The Holy Spirit.
Mufti Abu Layth continues @2:42 “And than the word ‘The Holy Spirit’ is used with no other prophet. We mean it’s used as revelation coming down with the ‘Holy Spirit’ but otherwise it’s used on three occasions just for Jesus. So you have for example Allah says in Surah al Baqarah verse 87, wa-ayyadnāhu birūḥi l-qudusi (We assistedWe gave him assistance, help with the Holy Spirit)”
He continues @3:12 “In Surah Baqarah verse 253, waātaynā ʿīsā ib’na maryama l-bayināti (We gave him the clear signs) wa-ayyadnāhu birūḥi l-qudus (and We helped him with the Holy Spirit).”
He continues @3:23 “In Surah Maidah verse 115 Allah says,” idh qāla l-lahu yāʿīsā ib’na maryama (and when God said oh Jesus the son of Mary) udh’kur niʿ’matī ʿalayka (remember my blessing upon you and your mother) wālidatika idh ayyadttuka birūḥi l-qudusi (when I helped you with the Holy Spirit).”
Mufti Abu Layth continues @ 3:43 “What is this Holy Spirit? This isn’t mentioned with any other prophet generally you don’t get any of the…So there’s allot of rhetoric being used that when it comes to Jesus was generally the kind of Christian rhetoric that is used in the Qur’an perhaps in a sense of building bridges; between the Muslims and the Christian communities and to maybe A) Find an ally in them. And B) maybe for many of them to convert and come closer. Find themselves in greater proximity to Islam and thereby embrace the message.”
Perhaps We are misunderstanding Mufti Abu Layth’s summary. Although, his language suggests someone who views the Qur’an as a product of the Prophet’s mind (saw) rather than divine revelation.
In other words, rather than the Qur’an being a divine revelation, in which common points of theology are discussed, it is simply a strategy or a device used to win over Christians. We would expect that train of thought from an Orientalist who sees the Qur’an as the product of the Prophet Muhammed’s mind. (saw).
Again maybe We are reading too much into what he is trying to convey; However, the language is concerning.
The Virgin Birth
So now we finally come to this section. Mufti Abu Layth starts off with making some rather bizarre statements.
He says, @6:22 “Now when it comes to the virgin birth, first of all, it’s a different topic that even in the Bible right, now, with the exception of the Gospel of Luke and Matthew, generally the Bible never really referred to in essence the virgin birth. I mean this wasn’t a the early Christians it’s not it’s most likely that the early Christians did not believe in a virgin birth.”
Our comments: We thought this statement was bizarre because the central theme of the Bible is about God acting in history to save his people (The Children of Israel). The central theme is a lost humanity that needs to be reconciled back with God. Thus the theme of salvation and redemption are central. So We thought it was a bizarre statement to imply that just because the Bible (New Testament) refers the virgin birth only twice We could somehow be dismissive of it.
He continues @6:59 “and the prophecy that they are referring to in the Old Testament even Biblical scholars highlight that word does not say, ‘betul’ (virgin) it says ‘almah’ (which meant a young girl); as in like a young maiden. Uh which most likely was a virgin, but didn’t have to be. So the same word is used with Solomon and the same word is used on a certain occasion ‘almah’ who had a child. So it’s one of the prophecies that they mentioned in the old testament that they kind of fall back on. But you will see before the Gospels are written, So any of the letters of the Apostles of the letters for example Paul and all of these there is never a mention of a miraculous birth of Jesus. And this comes much later, definitely by the second century, after Jesus. This becomes doctrine.”
Our comments: We feel that some Muslims most likely are deeply affected and moved by Western Orientalists. So the thinking here is that whoever wrote the virgin birth narrative wanted to justify this by appealing to text in the Old Testament.
The reliance of this author upon the Greek Septuagint could be a mistranslation error. So the Muslim thinking is, “Wouldn’t be odd if We incorporated into our faith (The Qur’an) something that turned out to be a simple translation error?”
I’m happy to see that Mufti Abu Layth has acknowledged that Matthew does mention the virgin birth, whereas before he made an error in saying that it didn’t.
Mufti Abu Layth’s train of thought on the writings of Paul is that he didn’t explicitly mention any narrative of the virgin birth and thus he does not believe it. However, this belies a few points.
1) Is it the task for Paul to reacquaint Christians with beliefs they already held?
2) Luke (who did indeed write about the virgin birth) was a companion of Paul.
3) Paul didn’t even mention Mary not a single time ever. So are We to assume that Paul didn’t believe that Mary existed?
We believe that Mufti Abu Layth is making some solid points but he needs to be prepared for what the other side will say.
Where Mufti Abu Layth really tries to force the points is where We can see that in this video he decries the fact that Muslims hold beliefs that are similar to Christians and yet tries to convince us that Christians themselves didn’t believe in the virgin birth!
The point here is that the text of the Qur’an is not beholden to what 1st, 2nd, or 3rd century Christians believed or did not believe.
@8:15 Mufti Abu Layth says, “Mary was definitely married and she was most likely definitely not a virgin.“
Our comments: What proof do you have Mufti Abu Layth that Mary was married and was ‘most likely definitely not’ a virgin?
@8:28 Mufti Abu Layth asserts, “Jesus had brothers and sisters. In fact, the Gospel of Mark and definitely Matthew 13 mention James, Joses, Jude, Simeon, and unnamed sisters were the children of Mary.”
Our comments: No where does the text of Matthew assert that the brothers of Jesus were the children of Mary. That is an open challenge to anyone; and not just Mufti Abu Layth.
We believe the text that Mufti Abu Layth had in mind is:
“When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at him.” (Matthew 13:54-57)
We do not know from memory what reference he had in mind for the Gospel of Mark.
So let’s unpack this further. Why do the ‘brothers of Jesus’ have to have come from Mary and not simply from another marriage of Joseph? The text not once calls any of them the children of Mary. That is an assumption.
Second, you have to understand that the name Mary itself was just as common as John is among English speakers today.
“Among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matthew 27:56); “There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome” (Mark 15:40).“But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” (John 19:25)
Ahmed Deedat used to say, ‘sons by the tons’ now We have ‘Marys by the millions’.
Remember the difficulty Christians and Orientalist would give us over the following text in the Qur’an:
“At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: “O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! “O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!” (Qur’an 19:27-28)
Today no one understands that Mary the mother of Jesus is the literal sister of Aaron the brother of Moses. This was certainly due to them not understanding Arabic and the context of how the language was used than.
@9:16 Mufti Abu Layth says, “Although no verse in the Qur’an says that she had a virgin birth.”
My response: The Qur’an nowhere says that Mary was married to Joseph or anyone. The Qur’an nowhere calls him, ‘ Jesus the son of Joseph’ or the son of any man.
The Qur’an taken as a whole conclusively proves that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary.
@10:00 minutes into the video Mufti Abu Layth mentions the name of only two scholars that state that the birth of Jesus was from a mother and a father.
What would be nice is to have the references or citations from these two anonymous men so that one could look at what they said.
Now, all We have to go on is what Mufti Abu Layth relates from these two anonymous scholars. However, if what he relates from them is as he says then it is simply not grounded in anything concrete.
Mufti Abu Layth continues…
“What these people said that it was a natural birth and that’s not the case. The miracle they highlighted is that when she got married to Joseph that Joseph would abstain and he was not interested in any kind of intimacy. And hence when the angel came and she, ‘But how can I have a child when I haven’t even been touched.’ That after that she did conceive. She conceived naturally. Just as Ibrahim (as) wife said How can I have a child when the angel came to her and she said I’ve reached menopause I’m an old lady. And they said and the angel said its the decree of God. It doesn’t mean she had a natural somehow kind of non sexual birth. It didn’t mean that. Just as the wife of Zachariah in the Qur’an who says that uh she was barren. She says, ‘How can I have a child.’ And the angel says, It is the decree of God. It doesn’t’ mean she just conceived just like that. She had a husband Zechariah. So these people who have argued this point have gone with just those two prophets before them. They said, well the same thing was said to them. Same thing was said to Mary. Every body accepts Mary had a husband at the time Joseph. The difference however was was that birth a virgin birth. Muslims do not believe she remained a virgin throughout her life.”
Comments: So let us pause here and unpack what brother Mufti Abu Layth presented to us.
Mufti Abu Layth and/or these two scholars tell us that “She got married to Joseph and that Joseph would abstain” Where do We find this statement in the Qur’an or the Sunnah? Remember Mufti Abu Layth likes to say, “Quran wa Sunnah”, “Quran wa Sunnah.”
Mufti Abu Layth and/or these two scholars tell us that “How can I have a child when the angel came to her and she said I’ve reached menopause I’m an old lady.”
This is the part in the article where We step away from the keyboard and hand it over to my mother or sister…
“Dear Mufti Abu Layth did you just say this woman reached menopause?”
“Dear Mufti Abu Layth did you know that during menopause ovulation ceases and a woman is unable to have children naturally?”
Now, this is the point where We can proclaim a checkmate on Mufti Abu Layth on three points.
The first is that he actually believes in a miraculous conception after all. A woman giving birth when she is no longer producing eggs is quite the miracle indeed!
Second, since this woman is having miraculous birth without eggs We can no longer discount the virgin birth of Christ Jesus.
The Third is that Mufti Abu Layth admits to angels being sent to break the natural laws. Why? Nothing in the text indicates that these women would have had children otherwise if not that an angel had appeared to them.
Why send an angel in the first place?
So this concept that Mufti Abu Layth doesn’t believe that the divine violates the natural laws has been brought into disrepute.
If Allah hadn’t intervened Ibrahim’s wife wouldn’t conceive after menopause, Zechariah’s wife would still be barren, and presumably, Joseph’s libido would be abysmal.
One last point on what Mufti Abu Layth said before We move on.
He rendered the Arabic text of Mary’s response as, “And hence when the angel came and she said, ‘But how can I have a child when I haven’t even been touched.”
Now Ustadh We have to say that was clever, clever indeed. You sir, naugty, naughty.
Again, We would like to ask you when you say, “Everybody accepts Mary had a husband at the time Joseph” and when you say, “Muslims do not believe she remained a virgin throughout her life.”
Where did you get this from?
We thought it was, “Quran wa Sunnah” Quran wa Sunnah” or do We take our beliefs from the Christians now?
Mufti Abu Layth continues @11:31
“And here’s another verse. Now this is an interesting one. Now Shaykh Yasir Qadhi who is saying, ‘No We only must go with literal readings of the Qur’an’, in Surah Al-Tahrim verse 12 you have the verse about Mary, wamaryama ib’nata ʿim’rāna allatī aḥṣanatfarjahā (And Mary who had been chased and safeguarded her private parts) and ‘ahsana‘ by the way is a verb that is used often in Arabic to do wife safe guarding through marriage. So hence they say somebody is in trouble for adultery were they ‘wahsan’. As Allah says in the Qur’an, ‘Waalmuhsanatu mina alnnisa’. Which is the beginning of the fifth Juz. Is referring to those women who were married. Who are chased through marriage. O.K? ‘nata ʿim’rāna allatī aḥṣanat farjahā fanafakhnā fīhi min rūḥinā’ You see this verse reads, ‘And Maryam the daughter of Imran who safeguarded her genitals her private parts We breathed into that, into it. Says, ‘ fanafakhnā fīhi’ (into her private parts) min rūḥinā (of our spirit) Now that’s in Surat Al Tahrim. As far as I’m aware no Muslim would generally believe that to be literal.”
My response: Yet, it doesn’t occur to Mufti Abu Layth, Allah (swt) using quite a literal language to get a point across?
No one else in the Qur’an is described with this type of language.
This language was not used of either Zecharia’s wife or Ibrahim’s wife. Allah (swt) again and again and again, addresses Jesus as ‘The son of Mary’, Jesus is called ‘A Spirit Proceeding from Him’ and even very strong literal language that shocked Muslim commentators is employed.
Are We really to believe as Mufti Abu Layth wants us to believe so that We as Muslims can believe that Jesus was born to a father named Joseph who is not even mentioned in the Qur’an, or Sunnah so that We can eventually adopt the Christian belief that Joseph is the father of Jesus? That is really quite something isn’t it.
@15:47 Mufti Abu Layth says, “Yes Allah could have clearly said and Yes Jesus didn’t have a dad but Allah doesn’t say that once in the Qur’an. He does not say that.”
My response: Yes and Allah could have clearly said and Yes Jesus does have a dad. But Allah doesn’t once say that Jesus had a dad.
In fact, what does Allah (swt) tell us?
There is a proof from the Qur’an that weighs in on this.
Allah (swt) tell us the following:
“Call them by the names of their fathers; it is more just in the sight of Allah.” (Qur’an 33:5)
So why doesn’t Allah (swt) do this when it comes to Jesus if he had a father?
Wouldn’t it be more just in the sight of Allah (swt) to call Jesus the son of (X) rather than Jesus the son of Mary?
Doesn’t’ this pique your interest at all brother Mufti Abu Layth? You don’t find it a bit odd that Allah (swt) calls Jesus the son of Mary over and over and over again?
With all due respect, you have resorted to incorporating Christian beliefs into Islam!
There is no mention of Joseph being the husband of Mary or the father of Jesus in the Qur’an.
There is no mention from the Blessed Prophet (saw) about Joseph being the husband of Mary or the father of Jesus from the lips of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
On what consistent basis do you tell us to guard against the idea of the second coming of Jesus as a belief that ‘crept into Islam’ when you have stormed the front gate with this? On what consistent basis can you do this?
@16:18 In fact, what does Allah (swt) tell us? is going to bring us the arguments of the two scholars he mentioned earlier. These supposedly rock-solid arguments against the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin. They are supposed to be arguments that Jesus was born of a natural father. So let us have at it.
Argument #1
And Zechariah and John and Jesus and Elias – and all were of the righteous. And Ishmael and Elisha and Jonah and Lot – and all of them We preferred over the worlds. And some among their fathers and their descendants and their brothers – and We chose them and We guided them to a straight path. (Qur’an 6:85-87)
Comments: So for those who may not follow the argument, basically the line of thinking here is that it mentions a whole grouping of Prophets and mentions in this context their fathers. So somehow Mufti Abu Layth and his scholars use this to advocate that all the prophets had fathers.
We will give you our understanding of this verse and We will show you why our understanding is valid and Mufti Abu Layth’s understanding is not.
Our understanding is that when it says, “their fathers and their descendants and their brothers” that this doesn’t mean that all of the prophets had fathers and children and brothers. Our understanding is that this verse addresses those who did have ‘fathers, descendants and brothers’.
Whereas if Mufti Abu Layth is going to be consistent and assert that ‘their fathers’ means ‘they all had fathers’ than the text that reads ‘their descendants’ if We are to be consistent must mean ‘they all had descendants.’
This would make Mufti Abu Layth the first Muslim to my knowledge to assert that John the Baptist and Jesus had children. That verse no more ‘weighs in on the side’ that Jesus had a father than it does ‘weigh in on the side’ that Jesus had children.
So that argument fails.
Argument #2
@17:40 Mufti Abu Layth brings the other argument that these scholars use. Mufti Abu Layth thinks that this is a very ‘powerful verse’ that they use!
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can God have a child, when He did not have a wife or a companion” (Qur’an 6:101)
First We find it interesting that Mufti Abu Layth has decided to translate the Arabic term ‘sahibatun’ as ‘wife’ or a ‘companion’. The Arabic term ‘zawja‘ it is not used in this context. Whereas We would have translated it as ‘companion’ and for good reason. Whereas Mufti Abu Layth focuses on the term ‘wife’.
Mufti Abu Layth and his two scholars’ understanding of this verse is both theologically unsound and outright egregious.
The way they understand the text, We must either choose between a Creator that is impotent (May Allah forgive us and guide us) or a Creator that is like his creation (May Allah forgive us and guide us).
Some questions that Mufti Abu Layth and his scholars would need to reflect on in order to come to the proper understanding of the verse would be:
Why can’t Allah (swt) have a son without a wife?
If you understand it the way that Mufti Abu Layth and his two scholars do, it makes Allah (swt) imply that he would need to have a wife. On what consistent basis could you make this claim if taking the verse as a whole?
Would they be opposed to the idea of Allah (swt) having a wife or a son based upon their logic? In other words do they or do they not find it a theological impossibility for Allah (swt) to have a wife and/or a son? So could Allah (swt) have a wife or a son? (May Allah forgive us and guide us).
Why do they (Mufti Abu Layth) and his two scholars assert that Allah (swt) would need to be like his creation or unlike his creation in the process of bringing a son into being?
“There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)
@19:26 Mufti Abu Layth makes what has to be the most incoherent statement thatWe are aware of since making You-Tube videos. “God doesn’t need to. God could just make a child without having a female. That’s an argument, that’s an argument against God, for using that as an argument. The only way that verse can make sense is if all births follow a natural law of order.”
How about We actually look at the whole verse, and not just a section of the verse? Why not look at the whole verse? Is that fair?
“Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a child when He does not have a companion and He created all things? And He is, of all things, Knowing.”(Qur’an 6:101)
Allah (swt) is the originator of the heavens and the earth. Does Mufti Abu Layth and/or his two scholars believe that there was a wife or an associate, or a partner or a companion that helped Allah (swt) in this?
Could Mufti Abu Layth and/or his two scholars tell us what natural laws did Allah (swt) follow or was beholden to when creating our reality and our existence?
The verse says, “He created all things.” In other words, if He Allah (swt) had a companion it would have to be a peer (a an equal to God). So Allah (swt) does not have a companion to begin with.
What is meant by having a companion?
Why do people seek out companionship/friendship/associates and peers?
Anything that human beings can receive from companions/friends/peers and associates stems from needs, and Allah (swt) is free from needs. Whatever people get from having associates and companions Allah (swt) can simply create it.
“There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)
If Allah (swt) had a companion /associate/ or peer it would entail being of the exact divine nature of Allah (swt). Allah (swt) crushes that notion with the following ‘He created ALL things’.
It is only logical that you can’t have two uncreated beings.
It is only logical that you can’t have two originators. This would also entail having a walad (a child)
Mufti Abu Layth is adamant that Allah (swt) is showing them their reasoning.
Mufti Abu Layth is focused on the issue of ‘walad’ whereas Allah (swt) is saying he doesn’t have a ‘sahibatun’ or a companion to begin with!
She said, “How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?” (Qur’an 19:20)
So according to Mufti Abu Layth and his select scholars, they understand this as Mary saying, “But I’ll have a child when I get pregnant by my husband.”
“How can God have a child, when He did not have a wife or a companion” (Qur’an 6:101)
So according to Mufti Abu Layth and his two scholars, they understand Allah as saying, “But if I had a wife I could have a child.”
Which is simply theologically unsound.Their interpretation of the text ignores the whole of the verse; and worse yet, it doesn’t negate for Allah (swt) the possibility of having a companion! (May Allah pardon us).
If anything in this article is good and beneficial, all praise be to Allah (swt). If there are any mistakes then surely this is from us. May Allah (swt) continue to guide and bless us. We seek the help of Allah (swt) and the help of Allah (swt) is sought.
May Allah (swt) bless Mufti Abu Layth for what he has brought that is good and May Allah (swt) forgive him and forgive us. May Allah (swt) guide him and guide us.
For those interested you may wish to read the following articles:
“Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, “Be,” and it is.” (Qur’an 2:117)
“And when your Lord took from the children of Adam – from their loins – their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying], ‘Am I not your Lord?’ They said, ‘Yes, we have testified.’ [This] – lest you should say on the day of Resurrection, ‘Indeed, we were of this unaware.'” (Qur’an 7:172)
﷽
Jesus (as) pre-exists in Islam the same way that you, the dear readers, pre-exist in Islam. Allah has knowledge of all things; However, eternal knowledge of a thing does not include the thing being eternal itself.
Jesus (as) is singled out as a word from Him due to the nature of his birth.
“Truly, the likeness of Jesus, in God’s sight, is as Adam’s likeness; He created him of dust, then said He unto him, ‘Be,’ and he was.” (Qur’an 3:59)
In other words, Jesus is a created word of Allah. “Be and it is” is an idiom for the expediency by which Allah brings something from non being into being.
Is Jesus the created word of Allah or the uncreated word of Allah?
“When the angels said, “O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word (bi-kalimatin) from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary – distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah]. (Qur’an 3:45)
Jesus (as) is a word from Him.
“And [the example of] Mary, the daughter of ‘Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into through Our angel, and she believed in the words (bi-kalimati) of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient.” (Qur’an 66:12)
Mary (as) is believing in the Lord and his words. Meaning they are not identical.
“O People of the Scripture do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and a word (kalimatuhu) from Him which He directed to Mary and a soul from Him. So, believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.” (Qur’an 4:171)
Jesus (as) is a word from Him.
“And if anyone of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the (kalam al-lahi) Words of Allah.” (Quran 9:6)
“Those who remained behind will say when you set out toward the war booty to take it, “Let us follow you.” They wish to change the (kalama l-lahi) Words of Allah.” (Quran 48:15)
All these words come from the same Arabic trilateral root.
ك ل م (kaf) (lam) (mim) Jesus is the created word of Allah (swt) just as The Qur’an is the created word of Allah (swt). If someone were to believe that Jesus (as) is the uncreated word of Allah (swt), then that would be Christianity. If someone were to believe that Jesus (as) is the created word of Allah (swt), that would be Islam and the path of safety.
One of our teachers has known people who left Islam for Christianity.
We have never heard of a Muslim who believes Allah (swt) alone is the Creator and everything else (including The Qur’an as being created) become a Christian.
We do not doubt, respected reader, that after your acquaintance with the arguments and debates presented in this discussion on the issue of the Creation of The Qur’an, you will have realized that the correctness and safety lie in the belief that it is, like all other existing things, something other than Allah. It came into existence after it had not been. Whatever is like that, it is without doubt created. You will have realized also that this belief in its being eternal opens the door for those who believe in the possibility of multiplicity of the eternal to the extent that it leads to belief in the world’s being eternal.
Sunni Muslims often assume that everyone operates with the same definition and understanding of an attribute, even though these definitions were not explicitly given by the Blessed Prophet (saw) nor laid out in The Qur’an.
Sunni concept & Ibadi concept.
Sunni/Salafi: Attributes ascribed to His Self (Sifat Dhatiyyah).
Attributes ascribed to His Actions (Sifat Fi’liyyah).
Attributes ascribed to both His Self and His Actions. (Sifat Dhatiyyah Fi’liyyah).
Ibadi: Attributes are of two types: essential (dhatiyyah) and active (fi’liyya).
Sunni: Speech is an eternal attribute. Ibadi: The power to produce is eternal (essential); the spoken revelation is created (active).
Sunni: The Qur’an is the attribute of speech. Ibadi: The Qur’an is the product of the attribute of speech, not the attribute itself.
Sunni: “Attribute of Speech” = eternal, uncreated.” Ibadi: “Attribute of Speech” = relates to Allah’s eternal power. Just like Allah’s ability to create = relates to Allah’s eternal power. However, Allah’s creation is temporal.
So when Sunnis say: “Either you believe one of Allah’s attributes is created and have likened him to creation, or you deny it being an attribute and reject Allah’s ability to truly speak.
We reply:
“We do not believe the attribute (power to speak) is created. We believe the product of that attribute (The Qur’an) is created. You have conflated the two. Your dilemma does not apply.
This is why we are not bothered when The Qur’an is referenced as the word of Muhammed (saw) or Gabriel (as) depending on the interpretation.”That this is verily the word of an honoured messenger.” (Qur’an 69:40)
“Verily this is the word of a most honourable Messenger.” (Qur’an 81:19)
Nor do we have problems with Jesus (as) being the Created word of Allah, as The Qur’an is the Created word of Allah.:
“The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and a word (kalimatuhu) from Him which He directed to Mary and a soul from Him”. (Qur’an 4:171)
If Jesus is called a “word” and is clearly created, then being designated as a “word of Allah” does not by itself imply eternality or uncreatedness. Therefore, the Qur’an can also be understood as a created word proceeding from Allah’s eternal power to speak.
Jesus is called ‘a word’ but no Muslim says Jesus is an attribute of Allah. Likewise, the Qur’an as a recited, sequential, Arabic text is a creation. What is uncreated is Allah’s eternal ability to speak, not any particular spoken thing.
Has that attribute of Allah entered into Creation?
Since the recited, audible, sequential Qur’an does exist in creation, it cannot be the eternal attribute itself. Therefore, what entered creation is created. The eternal attribute is simply Allah’s power to speak — which never “enters” anywhere, as it is not a thing but a capacity.
Honoured messenger.
By contrast, when Jesus is called “a word from Him” (kalimatun minhu) in Qur’an 3:45 or “His word which He cast unto Mary” in Qur’an 4:171. .The Qur’an too is a word from Him, either cast into Gabriel or Muhammed. Look at the verse of the Qur’an: “That this is verily the word of an honoured messenger” (Qur’an 69:40); see also Qur’an 81:19.
Thus, the disagreement is not really over whether 69:40 calls the Qur’an the word of a messenger. Both sides acknowledge the verse. The disagreement is over what follows from that fact.
The Sunni tradition says the verse concerns transmission, not ontology; the Ibadi argument says that once speech is spoken, revealed, and directed to creation, it is already an act and therefore created.
For example:
“And you did not kill them, but it was Allah who killed them. And you did not throw when you threw, but it was Allah who threw.” (Qur’an 8:17)
Key implications of this verse:
The apparent human action is real — Muhammed (saw) did physically throw.
But the creative origin is Allah’s — Allah created the act of throwing.
The act itself is temporal and created — no one claims “the throw” is eternal.
Attribution to the human does not negate creation — saying “Muhammed threw” is true in one sense, but ontologically the act is Allah’s creation.
“That this is verily the word of an honoured messenger.” (Qur’an 69:40)
Key implications of this verse:
The apparent human/angelic speech is real — The messenger (understood by classical exegetes as Muhammed (saw) in Qur’an 69:40, and as Jibril (as) in Qur’an 81:19) did physically utter or convey these words.
But the creative origin is Allah’s — Allah created the act of speech and the words themselves, just as He created the act of throwing in Qur’an 8:17.
The act itself is temporal and created — No one claims “the utterance” or “the conveyed speech” is eternal. The messenger spoke it in time; it was heard, recited, and transmitted in time.
Attribution to the messenger does not negate creation — Saying “this is the word of a messenger” is true in one sense (the messenger conveyed it), but ontologically the speech is Allah’s creation, just as the throw in Qur’an 8:17 is Allah’s creation despite being attributed to Muhammed.
“Say, He Allah is Absolute. That which is indepenent of all but which all things are dependent upon. He does not bring forth like kind nor was he from like kind. And there is no equivalent to His being Absolute.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)
﷽
We will demonstrate in this article (Allah-willing) that the New Testament never presents Jesus as the only Son of God. Where the New Testament cross references the Old Testament we will bring forth those texts.
This textual reality cuts straight to the heart of how the Trinity was formulated in the early Church. If the New Testament leaves room for other “sons of God” (whether angels, kings, or cosmic beings) and never uses mathematically exclusive language to isolate Jesus as the solitary son, it creates a massive structural and linguistic problem for Trinitarian theology.
It Explodes the “Eternal Generation” Framework
To protect the Trinity, early Church theologians (like those at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD) had to invent a philosophical concept called “Eternal Generation.”
They argued that Jesus is a Son not because he was created, but because he eternally “flows” from the Father, sharing the exact same divine substance (homoousios). To make this work, Jesus had to be the only one.
The Trinitarian Dilemma: If the text allows for other natural or heavenly beings to hold the status of “a son” without distinct legal qualifiers like adoption, then “Son of God” ceases to be a title of exclusive divine essence.
If an angel or a human king in the Old Testament is called a “Son of God” using the same basic Hebrew or Greek categories, then the title “Son” no longer automatically proves that Jesus is God. It lowers the title from an ontological statement (what Jesus is by nature) to a functional statement (the role Jesus plays).
This of course does not mean the end of Christianity. Allah (swt) tells us that they (along with the Jews) will be in schism until the day of judgement.
“And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 5:14)
Christianity has three last stages until it is completely irrelevant.
A shift in the West from Protestant tradition to Catholic Orthodox and Eastern Churches.
Marcionism we are entering that stage. By attacking Islam many Christians are essentially attacking the Old Testament.
Full Marcionism. Eventually a complete break with the Old Testament. This serves a number of purposes. It makes Christianity easier to defend from a moral and ethical angle. Also, it will distance themselves from any grip that Jews or Judaism (Zionism) has over them.
The first four pieces of evidence we will advance to show that Jesus was never the only son.
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only (monogenē) Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)
“…because he has not believed in the name of the only (monogenē) Son of God.” (John 3:18)
“In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only (monogenē) Son into the world, so that we might live through him.” (1 John 4:9)
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only (monogenē) Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)
At first blush one may be excused to think that these texts argue that Jesus is the only Son of God. However, there is a descriptor that precludes this altogether. He is the monogenē. Which is one of a kind.
To give an example. A father could have three sons. Two of the sons are twins. Therefore the son who does not have a twin is unique. He is one of a genes. He is one of a kind. He is never the only kind. He is never the only one.
Further evidence.
“By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only (monogenē) son.” (Hebrews 11:17)
The example of Isaac being called Abraham’s monogenēs despite Abraham having other sons (Ishmael and Keturah’s sons) proves that monogenēs does not mean “only one numerically.” It means “unique” or “one of a kind.” The Trinitarian attempt to use monogenēs as proof of exclusive, solitary divine sonship collapses once we see that the same Greek word is used of Isaac, who was plainly not an only child.
The case of John 1:18
“No one has seen God at any time. The only (monogenēs) Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” (John 1:18)
The above text has a variant reading. Christians are not sure which is the original. The variant reading would be: “No one has seen God at any time. The only (monogenēs) God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.”
Neither reading would be strange knowing what we know about henotheism.
One reading is that a unique Son of God made known the Father. The other reading would be one of the many gods made known the Father (god).
Our second set of evidence from John.
“Do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’ (John 10:36)
Context.
“Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?” (John 10:31-36)
Let us deal with the major problem of the error of Jesus. Jesus is making a blunder by misquoting the Tanakh. There is no such statement written ‘in your law’. It is found in the Psalms.
“I had taken you for divine beings, attendants *attendants Lit. “sons.” of the Most High, all of you;
Obviously Judaism trying to pretend that it is a monotheistic tradition. Instead of henotheism which it plainly is. It is struggling with how to render the above text.
Jesus here is trying to reason with this particular group of Jews. That there are many in the divine assembly called gods. The Jewish god is simply the chief god among them. In this worldview if there are many gods or many called gods then there is no problem if Jesus is a son among sons.
Jesus and the blind man. Son of God/Son of Man.
“Then they turned again to the blind man, “What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened.” The man replied, “He is a prophet.” (John 9:17)
The variant reading of John 9:35
“Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” (John 9:35)
In other variant readings it has ‘Son of God’.
So given our proof initial evidence that we have laid out from the five proof text it must then follow that this is the case for everything that is ascribed to the author called ‘John’.
This would include the following text:
1 John 3:8 1 John 4:15 1 John 5:5 1 John 5:10-13 1 John 5:20 John 20:31 John 11:27 John 1:49 John 1:34 John 11:4 John 5:25 Revelation 2:18
“But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31)
Given what we have shown — that Jesus is a son of God, and that John’s Gospel never presents Jesus as the only son of God — we should then expect if the New Testament is theologically in harmony then this should be the position of the entire New Testament.
Is there any text in the New Testament that explicitly describes Jesus as the exclusive, singular Son of God, to the total exclusion of all others?
To find that, we have to move away from the word monogenēs and look at how the Greek language handles the definite article (“the”) and the concept of absolute singular inheritance.
In Greek grammar, when a writer wants to emphasize absolute exclusivity—that someone is the specific, singular entity to the exclusion of all others—they use a structure called the “double article.”
We see this explicitly in the confessions of Peter and Martha, and during Jesus’ trial. They do not say “a Son of God.” They use the Greek definite article ho (the) before both “Son” and “God.”
“You are the Christ, the Son of the God, the living [One].” (Greek: Σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος) –(Matthew 16:16)
“You are the Christ, the Son of God, the [One] coming into the world.” (Greek: λέγει αὐτῷ, Ναί, κύριε· ἐγὼ πεπίστευκα ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐρχόμενος)-(John 11:27)
By placing the definite article ὁ (ho / “the”) directly before “Son,” the Greek text moves from an indefinite category (“a son”) to an exclusive, particular title (“the Son”).
However, recall what we have already received from John. That Jesus is one of a kind and not the only of his kind. So John 11:27 has to be harmonized with this. Given that Matthew 16:16 is given a similar example it too has to be harmonized with this.
Let us say that the father’s name is David. So let us say that one of those sons is named Tommy. Tommy is handicapped. So if we say, “You are the Handicapped the Son of the living David.” This in and of itself does not deny other sons. It means the other sons do not have this descriptor.
By adding a unique descriptor (the Christ) or a unique modifier (handicapped) isolates that specific individual within their role, but it does absolutely nothing to grammatically eliminate the existence of other sons.
The evidence of Hebrews 1:5
“For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have (gennaō) begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says.”
This shows that the author is addressing what must have been a prevalent belief that angels are sons of God.
“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.” (Job 1:6)
This author still has not addressed how Jesus is the only Son of God. The author is simply saying how this particular son is special. Even in the text itself is a glaring admission. “I will be to him A Father and he will be to me A son.”
This is a quote from
“I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.” (2 Samuel 7:14)
This text establishes four points.
That God will be the father of Jesus. Not that currently is or has been from eternity past.
That this God is ‘a’ father to Jesus. Not his only one. This is why Jesus had at times to distinguish which father he was talking about. “the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21)
That Jesus will be a son. Not that Jesus currently is or has been from eternity past.
That Jesus is ‘a’ son. Not that Jesus is the only son. The New Testament never once claims that Jesus is the only Son of God.
Not only is the text in Hebrew 1:5 quoting (2 Samuel 7:14) but it also quotes Psalms2:7.
“I will tell of the decree: The lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have (yə·liḏ·tî·ḵā.) begotten you.” (Psalm 2:7)
This text does not mean that Jesus is ontologically the Son of God. Rather he gets taken or adopted as a Son of God. Saying Jesus is ontologically the Son of God means he is the same nature, being, and essence as God
“Say, He Allah is Absolute. That which is independent of all but which all things are dependent upon. He does not bring forth like kind nor was he from like kind. And there is no equivalent to His being Absolute.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)
Originally this text was addressed to king David who was a grown man. King David is not ontologically the Son of God.
So ask any Christian if David is not ontologically the Son of God what does it mean when it says that God has begotten him to a grown man?
Because an adult king cannot be metaphysically born on his coronation day, the word “begotten” (yalad in Hebrew, gennaō in Greek) in royal contexts means exaltation to an office, not the generation of a nature.
They say:’ ‘The All-merciful has taken to Him a son.‘ Glory be to Him! Nay, but they are honoured slaves.” (Qur’an 21:26)
“And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died, he said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!” (Mark 15:39)
“The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.” (Luke 23:47)
The variant reading of Acts 3:26.
“Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” (Acts 3:26 King James Version)
“To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.” (Acts 3:26 New King James Version)
Notice that the King James Version calls Jesus “his Son”,Whereas the New King James Version calls Jesus “His Servant” and whenever you see that word “servant” in the New Testament, it means slave.
So we have established from the theology of Hebrews 1:5 the following:
Jesus was never the only Son of God.
Jesus was never the Son of God from eternity past.
The text undermines the classic Trinitarian concept of “Eternal Sonship.”
If Hebrews is to be a theologically consistent text then this must be the theology for the following text:
Hebrews 4:14 Hebrews 6:6 Hebrews 10:29
We have established using the four proof text in John’s Gospel as well as the statement in Hebrew 1:5 to prove that the New Testament never calls Jesus, monos huios (only son).
Psalms2:7 when does Jesus actuallybecome a Son of God in the New Testament?
Paul believed that Jesus was declared to be a Son of God by his resurrection from the dead.
There is no evidence that Paul believed in the virgin birth of Jesus.
Paul did not believe that Jesus was a Son of God from eternity past.
We will assume that Paul is the author of the following text under discussion.
“Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed (spermatos) of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” (Romans 1:3-4)
Literal Translation: “…the [one] designated/decreed/appointed Son of God in power… by the resurrection from the dead…”
Paul believed that Jesus was the literal seed (spermatos) of David. The mention of ‘sperm’ (spermatos) is difficult to reconcile with a virgin birth narrative. Paul also did not believe that Jesus was an eternal Son of God. Jesus becomes adopted as a Son of God by his resurrection from the dead.
“But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son [singular, definite], born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” (Galatians 4:4-5)
Again. Paul mentions Jesus born of a woman. No mention of a virgin birth.
At first glance, a Trinitarian reading jumps to the conclusion that “God sent forth his Son” means a pre-existent divine being was sent down from heaven. However, when we apply the legal, covenantal framework of Davidic sonship, a completely different, highly unified picture emerges.
In biblical language, when God “sends” or “sends forth” someone, it routinely describes the functional commissioning of a human agent or prophet to a specific task. It does not imply that the person existed in heaven before they were born.
Consider how the Gospel of John uses the exact same concept:
“There was a man sent from God, whose name was John [the Baptist].” (John 1:6)
Nobody reads John 1:6 and concludes that John the Baptist was a pre-existent eternal being who descended from heaven. He was “sent” because he was given a divine mission.
Once again look how Paul applies Psalm2:7. He applies it to the resurrection of Jesus.
“And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm: ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.'” (Acts 13:32-33)
Just as Jesus is an adopted son of God Christians can also become adopted sons/daughters of God.
“He predestined us for adoption as His sons through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will.” (Ephesians 1:5)
“And: “I will bea Father to you, and you will be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.” (2 Corinthians 6:18)
Given what we know from Pauls theology concerning Jesus and his sonship this would apply to the following text:
Galatians 2:20 2 Corinthians 1:19 Ephesians 4:13
We further see that Jesus is not the only Son of God but rather an older brother in a larger divine family. We will discuss this now.
The Problem of “Firstborn” (Prōtotokos)
“For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn (prōtotokon) among many brothers and sisters.” (Romans 8:29)
“And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn (prōtotokos) from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.” (Colossians 1:18)
Because the New Testament avoids calling Jesus the monos (mathematically only) son, it frequently uses another word that causes immense trouble for Trinitarian theology: Prōtotokos meaning “Firstborn.”
For a Trinitarian, “Firstborn” has to be heavily explained away as a metaphor meaning “supreme ruler” or “preeminent.” But if you pair prōtotokos with the grammatical reality we discussed—that the New Testament doesn’t textually isolate Jesus as the only son—the natural, plain reading of the text shifts dramatically. He looks less like a member of a co-equal Trinity and more like the elder brother or the first son in a larger divine family.
When you read the Nicene Creed (the definitive formula for the Trinity), the language shifts radically away from the flexible, conversational style of the New Testament into rigid, Western, mathematical exclusivity:
“…And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds… Very God of Very God… being of one substance with the Father…”
By noticing that the New Testament itself doesn’t actually say this, you expose a massive historical gap. The Trinity cannot be read straight off the pages of the Bible using strict grammar; it requires a massive philosophical overlay that was forced onto the text centuries later to make the language exclusive.
Psalms2:7 when does Jesus actuallybecome a Son of God in the New Testament?
The baptismal announcement.
“And behold, a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’ (Matthew 3:17)
Note: Matthew records the voice speaking in the third person, as a public declaration to the crowd.
“And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:11)
Note: Mark records the voice speaking in the second person, addressing Jesus directly.
“And the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.’ (Luke 3:22)
Note: Found in the oldest Alexandrian codices like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, matching Mark exactly.
The Western Textual Variant for Luke 3:22
In a major ancient textual branch known as the Western Text—most famously preserved in the 5th-century Greek/Latin manuscript Codex Bezae (Manuscript D)—the voice from heaven does not say “with you I am well pleased.” Instead, it quotes Psalm 2:7 word-for-word:
“…and a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you.'”(Greek: υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε)
“And the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you.” (Luke 3:22)
Prima Qur’an comments: First it should be noted that none of the above text speak about an only son. They are texts that talk about a particular son.
The case of Matthew.
Matthew begins his gospel with a detailed genealogy and a virgin birth narrative (Matthew 1:18–25). In Matthew’s theology, Jesus’ identity as a Son of God is established biologically and ontologically from the very moment of his conception by the Holy Spirit.
Because Jesus’ identity is already a settled, historical fact before he ever reaches the Jordan River, Matthew subtly alters the baptism text:
Matthew 3:17:“This is my beloved Son…”
The voice does not address Jesus (“You are”). It addresses the bystanders (“This is”). It is a public revelation to the crowd, confirming what the narrative has already established to the reader: this man is the miraculous, virgin-born Son. Jesus does not need to be informed; the audience does.
The case of Mark.
Mark’s Gospel has no virgin birth narrative and no childhood stories. It begins abruptly with Jesus as an adult walking out of Nazareth to be baptized.
Because Mark lacks a biological explanation for Jesus’ sonship, the baptism scene carries the entire theological weight of his identity. And as we pointed out, the grammar reflects a completely different, highly personal experience:
Mark 1:11:“You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”
In Mark’s presentation, the voice speaks directly and exclusively to Jesus. Textually, this reads as a personal awakening or an official investment of an office.
If Mark intended his readers to believe Jesus was the uncreated, pre-existent Son from all eternity, starting the book with an adult man who needs to be personally told by a voice from heaven, “You are my Son,” is a highly counterproductive way to write. It perfectly aligns with an Adoptionist framework, where Jesus is chosen and appointed at this exact moment.
The text of Mark 1:1.
Textual critics have discovered that the phrase “the Son of God” (υἱοῦ θεοῦ) is entirely missing from some of our oldest, most important uncial manuscripts, most notably Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Koridethi
Sample of a Greek Bible manuscript, Codex Sinaiticus (4th century AD), Mark 1, 1 – 3 and 9 – 10. Facsimile, published in 1862.
Source: (Codex Sinaiticus column detail of Mark 1:1. Source: ZU_09 / Getty Images)
Scribes were notorious for “orthodox corruption”—adding titles of high christology to verses to combat heresies. It is highly likely that an early scribe looked at Mark’s abrupt opening, realized it lacked a virgin birth or any explicit declaration of divine sonship until the baptism, and “corrected” verse 1 by adding “the Son of God” to make the book sound safer and more orthodox from the very first line.
If the original text of Mark simply read, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” then Mark does not introduce Jesus as the Son of God until the voice tells him so at his baptism.
Luke’s Harmonizing Strategy
Luke presents the final piece of the puzzle. Like Matthew, Luke includes a virgin birth narrative(Luke 1:35), where the angel explicitly tells Mary that the child will be called a Son of God because of the Holy Spirit’s oversight.
Yet, when Luke gets to the baptism, he preserves the second-person address from Mark (“You are my beloved Son”).
This creates the exact structural tension that led to the creation of the Western Text variant we discussed earlier (“Today I have begotten you”). Early scribes working on Luke’s text recognized that if Luke already had a virgin birth narrative, keeping the baptismal formula as a time-stamped coronation (“Today I have begotten you”) created a blatant contradiction.
How can he be begotten at birth and begotten at baptism? To smooth this over, the Alexandrian textual line likely scrubbed the “Today” variant out of Luke to align it with Matthew’s safer, static theological framework.
The text of Acts 8:37.
“And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.” (Acts 8:36-38)
“Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.” (Acts 8:36-38)
There are two different manuscript traditions. Christians are not certain as to which of these are more correct.
The text of Matthew 16:16 and the parallel accounts.
“Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16).
Notice his response in the parallel accounts.
“You are the Christ,’ Peter answered.” (Mark 8:29)
“Peter answered, ‘The Christ of God.” (Luke 9:20)
Here is the logical syllogism:
The three accounts describe the exact same historical conversation.
Mark and Luke record Peter saying only “The Christ” or “The Christ of God.”
Matthew expands this to “The Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Therefore, either the gospels flatly contradict each other on what Peter actually muttered, OR “Christ” and “Son of God” are being used as functional synonyms.
And since “Christ” (Christos / Mashiach) literally means “Anointed One”—a political, royal title for an appointed human king—then “Son of God” in Matthew’s confession must mean exactly the same thing: the anointed one.
If anyone doubts our reconciliation—that “Christ” and “Son of God” are simply synonyms for an appointed ruler—Matthew himself proves our point later during Jesus’ trial.
Look at the exact wording the High Priest uses to force Jesus under oath:
“I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” (Matthew 26:63)
The High Priest is not a Christian. He does not believe in the Trinity, nor is he asking Jesus a metaphysical question about his eternal divine essence. He is a Jewish judge asking a political, messianic question: “Are you claiming to be the Anointed Davidic King (the Christ), who is entitled to the royal title ‘Son of God’ via the covenant of David?
Lastly, as a bonus, we want to discuss Isaiah 9:6
The popular Christian version of Isaiah 9:6 is not even in Septuagint!
“For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will rest on his shoulders. And he will be called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)
“For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.”(Isaiah 9:6 -The Septuagint– The Holy Spirit’s Fav Version)
Where are all these other names?
So who is upon the truth? Are Latin Roman Catholics, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox upon guidance for trusting a text that does not make Christological claims about Jesus, such as calling him (Jesus) ‘The Everlasting Father’? Claims that contradict the idea that Jesus is not the Father?
Or are those Protestants who trust in the Masoretic text (although they still give it a Christological bent) upon the truth?
Only one person in the Jewish scriptures is referred to as “mighty god” and his name is Hizkiyyahu or, Hezekiah (mighty god). Jewish names, like many Muslims’ names, are what one may call a theophoric name. The 1st century Christians did not use Isaiah 9:6 for Christological purposes. Latter ones did, though. Changing the Hebrew perfect tense to future tense.
In conclusion, the New Testament never says Jesus is the only Son of God.
It calls Him monogenēs (unique), prōtotokos (firstborn), huios (son) with the definite article, but never monos huios (only son). The Trinitarian reading requires importing a philosophical exclusivity that the text does not supply.
It does not take a genius to tell you this breaks the Trinity.
If you enjoyed this article you may be interested in the following:
“And give full measure when you measure out, and weigh with a true balance; this is fair and better in the end.” (Qur’an 17:35)
﷽
The Asymmetry No One Talks About
When Christian apologists attack the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw), they have an enormous body of material to work with. They cite the sīrah (biography), the ḥadīth (sayings and actions), and the maghāzī (campaign literature). From his first revelation at age 40 to his death at approximately 63, that is roughly 23 years of public prophetic activity. Even if one includes his life before prophethood, from age 25 (his first marriage to Khadījah-ra) to 40, that adds another 15 years of documented context. In total, critics have 35+ years of recorded material to analyze, critique, and polemicize.
But what about Jesus?
Most Christians have never stopped to ask a simple question: How many actual words attributed to Jesus are even in the New Testament? And more importantly: How much of Jesus’s life is actually recorded?
This article is not an argument for Islam. It is an argument for intellectual honesty. The comparison Christian apologists make between Jesus(as) and Muhammed (saw) is not balanced — not because Islam/Christianity is true/false, but because the evidentiary basis for each figure is radically different.
The Raw Data – How Many Words of Jesus Actually Exist?
According to a detailed analysis from synopticgospel.com, the total number of words attributed to Jesus Christ in the four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) is 31,426.
But that number includes duplicate material. The same speeches and parables appear in multiple Gospels. Once you exclude the duplication of Jesus’s speeches across the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), the total unique words drop significantly.
If you enter 31,426 words into a standard “Convert Words to Minutes” speech calculator, you find that it would take approximately 242 minutes — or about 4 hours — to read all of Jesus’s words aloud.
That is the sum total. Four hours of reading. That is everything Jesus is recorded as saying in the four Gospels.
Beyond the Gospels – Jesus’s Words in the Rest of the New Testament
Most Christians assume the Gospels are where Jesus speaks. That is correct. But what about the rest of the 27-book New Testament canon (the one accepted by Latin Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and most Protestants)?
Here is the complete inventory of words attributed to Jesus outside the four Gospels.
Acts of the Apostles
Acts 1:4-8 – The risen Jesus commands the apostles to wait for the Holy Spirit.
Acts 9:4-16 – Jesus appears to Saul (Paul) on the road to Damascus: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” and subsequent instructions to Ananias.
Acts 11:16 – Peter recalls Jesus’s words: “John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 18:9-10 – Jesus speaks to Paul in a vision at Corinth: “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking… I am with you.”
Acts 20:35 – Paul recalls a saying of Jesus not found in the Gospels: “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”
Acts 22:7-10 – Paul’s retelling of the Damascus road experience.
Acts 22:18-21 – Jesus tells Paul to leave Jerusalem: “Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.”
Acts 23:11 – Jesus stands by Paul: “Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.”
Acts 26:14-18 – Paul’s third retelling, with additional detail: “It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”
1 Corinthians
1 Corinthians 11:24-25 – The institution of the Eucharist: “This is my body… This cup is the new covenant in my blood.”
2 Corinthians
2 Corinthians 12:9 – A saying of Jesus to Paul: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”
Revelation
Revelation 1–3 – The risen Christ speaks to the seven churches: “I am the Alpha and the Omega… Write to the angel of the church in Ephesus…” (approximately 20-30 verses of direct speech).
The Rest – Complete Silence
The following New Testament books contain zero direct words attributed to Jesus:
Romans
Galatians
Colossians
Ephesians
Philippians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
That is 19 books out of 27 with absolutely no direct quotation of Jesus.
The 27-Book Canon – A Closer Look
It is worth remembering that the 27-book New Testament was not the only canon in early Christianity. There were rival Christian communities with 22-book New Testaments and others with 35-book New Testaments. The canon we have today is the result of debates, disputes, and eventual ecclesiastical decisions.
But even granting the 27-book canon as authoritative, the fact remains:
Only 8 books contain any direct words of Jesus: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, and Revelation.
19 books (70% of the New Testament by book count) have no words of Jesus in them at all.
Most Christians never stop to think about this. They assume the New Testament is full of Jesus speaking. In reality, the vast majority of the New Testament is written about Jesus — not by him, and not quoting him.
The 90% Problem – Jesus Lived 33 Years. We Have 3.
According to Luke 3:23, Jesus began his public ministry when he was “about thirty years old.” Traditional dating places his birth at approximately 4 BC and his crucifixion around AD 30 or 33. That gives him a lifespan of roughly 33 years.
His public ministry — the period from which we have any recorded words at all — lasted approximately 3 years.
3 years out of 33 = approximately 9% of his life.
That means 91% of Jesus’s life is completely silent in the New Testament.
From birth to age 12: one brief episode in the temple (Luke 2:41-52).
From age 12 to age 30: absolute silence. Nothing. No words. No actions. No teachings.
From age 30 to 33: roughly 4 hours of unique sayings (after excluding Synoptic duplicates).
Think about that. God incarnate, according to Christian theology, walked the earth for 33 years. The Christian record gives us only a handful of episodes from a 3-year window. The rest is silence.
Christian theology has an answer for this: the “hidden years” demonstrate Jesus’s full humanity, his ordinary life, his obedience. But that answer does not solve the historical or polemical problem. It simply explains why the silence is theologically acceptable.
For the purpose of comparing Jesus (as) to Muhammed (saw), the silence is not a theological virtue. It is an evidentiary void.
Age and Life Experience: The Unasked Question
There is another layer to this asymmetry that is almost never discussed: age. Jesus (as) died at approximately 33 years old. Muhammed (saw) died at approximately 63 years old. That is a 30-year difference. A full generation.
Now ask yourself: If Jesus had lived to 63 — if his public ministry had continued for another three decades beyond the brief three years recorded in the Gospels — how much more material would the New Testament contain? How many more sermons? How many more parables? How many more interactions with political authorities, with families, with enemies, with disciples who failed him? How many more decisions under pressure, more moments of moral complexity, more spoken words?
We cannot know, of course. The New Testament does not tell us. But that is precisely the point.
The Christian apologist who contrasts 23 years of prophetic activity (or 35+ years of documented adult life) with Jesus’s 3 years of public ministry is not comparing like with like. They are comparing a life cut short in its early thirties — a life whose longest documented period is measured in hours of speech — with a life that spanned more than six decades and produced enough literature to fill multiple volumes of hadith, sīrah, and tafsīr.
It is entirely possible that a 63-year-old Jesus would have said and done things that a 33-year-old Jesus did not. Perhaps he would have married. Perhaps he would have wielded political power. Perhaps he would have led what looked like military campaigns. Perhaps he would have said more things that later generations found morally uncomfortable. More so even than what we find today. We will never know. Because the claim is he died young. And the Gospels, as they exist, give us almost nothing from the first 30 years of his life and only a sliver from his final three.
To pretend that the silence of the New Testament is a moral or theological victory for Christianity — is to mistake absence of evidence for evidence of moral superiority. That is not scholarship. That is polemics dressed up as piety.
4 Hours vs. 35 Years – The Evidentiary Chasm
Now let us put the two figures side by side.
The data
Jesus (canonical NT)
Muhammed (sīrah, ḥadīth, maghāzī)
Public prophetic ministry
~3 years
~23 years (610-632 CE)
Total documented life
~9% (3 of 33 years)
~100% of prophetic period
Unique spoken words
~4 hours of reading aloud possibly 2 hours without repetitions from the synoptics.
Hundreds of thousands of ḥadīth (of various grades of authenticity)
Narrow: rural Galilee, Jerusalem, Roman occupation
Broad: Medinan state, marraiges, diplomacy, law, economics, community governance
When Christian apologists attack the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw), they have an enormous dataset. They can point to specific battles, specific marriages, specific political decisions, specific legal rulings, and specific moments of apparent moral failure — all dated, documented, and debated within Islamic tradition itself.
When Muslims (or anyone) try to respond symmetrically, they cannot. Not because Jesus was morally superior/inferior, but because the New Testament gives us almost nothing to work with outside a handful of sayings and a short public ministry.
The Christian Apologist’s Blind Spot
Here is the uncomfortable question this raises:
If your case against Muhammed (saw) depends on comparing his documented actions to Jesus’s silence, are you truly making a fair argument?
The Christian apologist will often say: “Jesus never married multiple women. Jesus never led raids. Jesus never owned slaves. Jesus never wielded political power.”
All of that is true — if we limit ourselves to the 3 years and 4 hours of material we have.
But the apologist rarely adds the necessary caveat: “And we have almost no information about what Jesus did or said for the other 30 years of his life.”
The comparison is not between two equally documented figures. It is between:
A man with 35+ years of dense, varied, politically and militarily detailed documentation (Muhammed), and
A man whose recorded words can be read aloud in an afternoon, and whose entire public ministry fits into a 3-year window (Jesus).
That is not a level playing field. It is not a fair comparison. And the Christian apologist who pretends it is has either not thought about the asymmetry or is deliberately ignoring it.
Conclusion – Not a Win, Just an Asymmetry
This article is not arguing that Christianity is false. It is not arguing that Islam is true. It is not even arguing that the Blessed Prophet Muhammwd was a better or worse prophet than Jesus.
It is arguing something much simpler — and much more uncomfortable for the Christian polemicist:
You cannot build a fair case against Muhammed (saw) by relying on a Jesus who barely speaks.
The New Testament is 90% silent about Jesus’s life. He spoke for approximately 4 hours of unique material over a 3-year public ministry. The rest of his 33 years are a blank slate.
The Islamic sources for the life of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) are vastly more detailed, more diverse, and more extensive. That gives the Christian apologist more material. It gives them more material because there is simply more material.
If the Gospels had recorded Jesus from age 12 to 30 — his words, his actions, his relationships, his work, his political views, his family life — the Christian polemic against the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) might look very different. Or it might collapse entirely. We will never know.
Because the New Testament is silent.
And that silence is not the Christian apologist’s ace in the hole. It is the very thing that makes the comparison impossible from the start.
A Note to Christian Readers
If you are a Christian reading this and feeling defensive, ask yourself honestly:
Would you want your case for Jesus to rest on a comparison with the Prophet Muhammed (saw) that requires ignoring 30 years of Jesus’s life and the thinness of the Gospel record?
Or would you rather admit: “We don’t have much from Jesus outside a short ministry. That doesn’t prove Christianity false. But it does mean comparing him to Muhammed (saw) on deeds and sayings is apples to oranges.”
That is all this article asks. Honesty about the data. Just a recognition that the scales are not balanced — and they never were.
May Allah Guide the Jews and the Chrisitians to the truth!
“That is because Allah He is the Truth (Al Haqq) -the Only True God of all that exists, Who has no partners or rival, the ultimate reality, and what they (those who associate) invoke besides Him, it is Batil (falsehood) And verily, Allah He is the Highest, The Most Great.” (Qur’an 22:62)
“No! We hurl the Truth against Falsehood, and it crushes it. Behold, falsehood does perish! Woe to you for the false things you ascribe.” (Qur’an 21:18)
﷽
The Bible claims to be a repository of divine revelation delivered through prophets. Yet within its own pages lie passages that raise a devastating question: How can anyone know, with objective certainty, whether a prophet speaks for God or for a deceiving spirit?
Two passages—1 Kings 22 (the lying spirit sent to deceive Ahab’s prophets) and 2 Kings 3 (the Moabite king’s child sacrifice to Chemosh that apparently succeeded)—demonstrate that the Bible provides no reliable, objective criterion for distinguishing true prophecy from false. Consequently, confidence in the God of the Bible and the reliability of the prophetic tradition is not rationally justified.
The Lying Spirit of 1 Kings 22
In 1 Kings 22, King Ahab of Israel seeks prophetic guidance before attacking Ramoth-gilead. Four hundred prophets unanimously predict victory. King Jehoshaphat of Judah asks for another prophet. Micaiah son of Imlah is summoned. After initial sarcasm, Micaiah delivers a startling revelation:
“I saw the Lord seated on his throne, with the whole host of heaven standing to his right and to his left. The Lord asked: Who will deceive Ahab, so that he will go up and fall on Ramoth-gilead? And one said this, another that, until this spirit came forth and stood before the Lord, saying, ‘I will deceive him.’ The Lord asked: How? He answered, ‘I will go forth and become a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets.’ The Lord replied: You shall succeed in deceiving him. Go forth and do this. So now, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours; the Lord himself has decreed evil against you.” (1 Kings 22:19–23)
This Is A Huge Problem.
This passage establishes several disturbing facts:
The Lord initiates deception. He does not merely permit a lying spirit to act; he asks for volunteers to deceive Ahab.
The lying spirit acts with divine authorization. The Lord commands, “Go forth and do this.”
The 400 prophets are sincere but deceived. Nothing in the text suggests they are frauds. They experience genuine prophetic ecstasy. They believe they speak for God. They are wrong.
The deception works. Ahab hears the prophesied victory, believes it, goes to battle, and dies.
The Objective Criterion Problem
If a prophet can be sincerely inspired by a lying spirit sent by the Lord, then the prophet’s subjective experience of inspiration is worthless as a test of truth. The 400 prophets felt exactly as true prophets feel. They spoke with confidence. They may even have performed signs (Zedekiah’s iron horns in verse 11). Yet they were deceived.
This means that any prophet at any time could be in the same position. There is no internal marker—no distinctive feeling, no special certainty, no accompanying miracle—that guarantees the message comes from the Lord rather than from a divinely commissioned lying spirit.
Possible Counter-Arguments and Responses
These objections are usually the response of those Christians who believe in Glossolalia, or speaking in tongues. Often other Christians will ask them how do they (Pentacostal, Evangelical) know that they do not have a lying spirit? These interesting internal Christian debates have helped in what follows.
Counter-argument 1: The lying spirit was sent as judgment against Ahab because he had already rejected the truth. The 400 prophets were not typical prophets; they were court prophets who told Ahab what he wanted to hear.
Prima Qur’an Response: This does not solve the objective criterion problem. Even if the 400 prophets were corrupt, the text says the lying spirit entered their mouths. The deception was real. More importantly, how would an observer know, in advance, which prophets are corrupt and which are true? Ahab had no objective way to know that Micaiah was the true prophet and the 400 were deceived until after the battle—when Ahab was dead. The test of fulfillment (Deuteronomy 18:21–22) works only in hindsight.
Counter-argument 2: Deuteronomy 13 provides a test: even if a prophet’s sign comes true, if he leads people to other gods, he is false. The 400 prophets did not do that.
Prima Qur’an Response: Deuteronomy 13 is a necessary test, but not a sufficient one. It catches only prophets who explicitly advocate idolatry. What about prophets who speak in the name of the Lord but are deceived? What about prophets who give military or political advice that leads to disaster? The lying spirit speaks in the name of the Lord. The 400 prophets say, “The Lord will give it into the power of the king” (verse 6). They do not advocate other gods. Yet they are false. Deuteronomy 13 does not identify them.
Counter-argument 3: The test of fulfillment eventually caught the false prophets. Ahab died. Their prophecy failed. That is the objective criterion.
Prima Qur’an Response: This is true but useless for anyone who must make a decision before the event. Ahab needed to know beforethe battle whether to attack. The 400 prophets gave him confident assurance. Micaiah gave him a warning. Ahab chose the majority. He had no objective way to decide which group was telling the truth. The test of fulfillment only works after the fact—after lives have been lost. A decision-making criterion that only works retroactively is not a criterion for decision-making at all.
The God of Chemosh in 2 Kings 3
In 2 Kings 3, the Moabite king rebels against Israel. Jehoram of Israel, Jehoshaphat of Judah, and the king of Edom form a coalition to attack Moab from the south. They run out of water. The prophet Elisha is consulted. He prophesies:
“Thus says the Lord: Dig ditches in this wadi. For thus says the Lord: You will see neither wind nor rain, yet the wadi will fill with water, and you will drink—you, your cattle, and your pack animals. And this is easy in the Lord’s sight; he will also deliver Moab into your power. You will destroy every fortified city and every choice city, cut down every good tree, stop up all the springs, and ruin every fertile field with stones.” (2 Kings 3:16–19)
The next morning, water comes. The Moabites see the water red in the sunlight, mistake it for blood, assume the allied kings have turned on each other, and rush out to plunder. The Israelites rise up and defeat them, pursuing them into Moab.
Then the text continues:
“When the king of Moab saw that the battle was going against him, he took with him seven hundred swordsmen to break through to the king of Edom, but they failed. Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him, and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And great wrath came upon Israel, so they withdrew from him and returned to their own land.” (2 Kings 3:26–27)
Another Massive Problem.
The plain reading of the text is devastating for any claim that the Lord alone is God or that other gods have no real power:
Elisha, a true prophet of the Lord, prophesied total victory. He said Moab would be delivered into Israel’s power. He described complete destruction: every city destroyed, every tree cut down, every spring stopped.
The Moabite king offers his son to Chemosh. This is not a private ritual; it is a public act of desperate propitiation, performed on the wall for both armies to see.
Something happens. The text does not explain the mechanism, but the causal sequence is unmistakable: sacrifice —> great wrath —> Israel withdraws.
Israel does not achieve the prophesied victory. They do not destroy Moab’s cities. They do not cut down its trees. They withdraw. They go home.
The most natural reading is that Chemosh, the Moabite god, was propitiated by the child sacrifice and responded by protecting Moab and driving Israel away.
Score card: Chemosh 1 Yahweh 0.
People May Ask: Does This Mean Chemosh Exists and Has Power?
If the biblical text reports that a sacrifice to Chemosh produced a military victory against an army that had the blessing of the Lord (through Elisha), then one of three conclusions follows:
Chemosh is a real god with real power. The Lord is not the only God, or at least not the only effective God. The Bible contains henotheism (many gods, but Israel must worship only one) rather than monotheism (only one God exists).
The Lord caused the wrath to punish Israel for some unstated sin. But the text does not say this. Elisha’s prophecy was unconditional: “The Lord will deliver Moab into your power.” If the Lord then caused Israel’s defeat, Elisha was a false prophet by Deuteronomy 18’s test. That creates an even larger problem.
The “wrath” was psychological—Israelite morale collapsed at the horror of child sacrifice. But the text does not say that either. It says wrath came upon Israel (qetseph gadol ‘al Yisra’el). The same language is used elsewhere for divine wrath. And psychological collapse is still an effect caused by the sacrifice—an effect that a non-existent god could not produce.
Possible Counter-Arguments and Responses
We have not seen good objectives or responses to the above. However, Christian apologetic is often predictable. Here are some of their possible counters as well as our response.
Counter-argument 1: The withdrawal was temporary. The text does not say Moab won the war. It only says Israel withdrew from that particular siege. Moab remained a vassal or was later subdued.
Priama Qur’an response: This is special pleading. The text presents the withdrawal as a direct consequence of the wrath. Elisha’s prophecy promised total destruction of Moab’s cities. That did not happen. The text does not record any later Moabite subjugation in this campaign. The plain reading is that the sacrifice worked and Israel failed to achieve its objective.
Counter-argument 2: The “great wrath” was from the Lord against Moab, not against Israel. So the wrath came upon Moab, causing the Israelites to withdraw because Moab was now protected by divine wrath.
Prima Qur’an response: The wrath comes after the sacrifice. If the wrath is against Moab, why does Israel withdraw? Israel would press the attack if Moab were under divine wrath. The withdrawal makes sense only if the wrath is against Israel—or if the wrath is Chemosh’s wrath against Israel. The simplest reading remains the most natural: the sacrifice propitiated Chemosh, and Chemosh acted.
Counter-argument 3: Chemosh may have real power, but that power is demonic and subordinate to the Lord.
Prima Qur’an Response: This does not solve the problem; it relocates it. If Chemosh is a demon acting under the Lord’s permission, then the Lord permitted a demon to defeat his own prophet’s prophecy. That means the Lord allows his own true prophets to be publicly humiliated and his people to be defeated by demonic powers. On what basis could anyone then trust a prophetic word? The Lord might have authorized a lying spirit to deceive the prophet (as in 1 Kings 22) or authorized a demon to defeat the army (as in 2 Kings 3). There is no objective way to know.
Counter-argument 4: The story is not about Chemosh’s power but about the horror of child sacrifice. The Israelites withdrew because they were morally repulsed, not because Chemosh did anything.
Prima Qur’an Response: The text does not say this. It says “great wrath came upon Israel.” That is theological language. The author could have written “they were horrified” but did not. Moreover, if the withdrawal was purely psychological, then the Moabite king’s strategy worked—not because Chemosh necesarilyh exists, but because human psychology responded to the horror. That still means the sacrifice was effective. And it means the Lord’s prophet (Elisha) did not foresee this psychological effect, despite having just predicted total victory. That makes Elisha a false prophet by the standard of Deuteronomy 18.
The Real Problem: The Collapse of Objective Criteria
The Bible provides several tests for prophets. Each fails when subjected to the evidence of these passages.
Test One: Fulfillment (Deuteronomy 18:21–22)
“If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord and the word does not come true, that word was not spoken by the Lord.”
The Problem: This test only works after the fact. Ahab needed to decide before the battle. Moreover, 2 Kings 3 shows that even a true prophet (Elisha) can prophesy victory that does not come to pass. Either Elisha was not a true prophet (contradicting the text’s presentation of him) or the test fails. And if a lying spirit can make false prophets succeed (1 Kings 22), then even fulfilled prophecy is not proof of divine origin. A demon could produce a fulfilled prediction to deceive.
Test Two: Theological Orthodoxy (Deuteronomy 13:1–5)
“If a prophet arises and gives you a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder comes true, but he says, ‘Let us follow other gods,’ you must not listen.”
The Problem: This test catches only prophets who explicitly advocate idolatry. The 400 prophets in 1 Kings 22 spoke in the name of the Lord. They did not advocate other gods. Yet they were deceived. A lying spirit can speak perfectly orthodox theology while leading people to destruction. Theological orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.
Think about it. The above text says that a there can be a false prophet who can give signs and wonders.
In fact, they have Jesus say as much here:
“For there shall arise false christs and false prophets and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (Matthew 24:24)
The only thing that makes that prophet false is that he is doing these things either by the power or in the name of another god. This is no objective criteria at all. It puts both on an even playing field.
Test Three: Track Record and Character
The Problem: Ahab knew that Micaiah had a track record of negative prophecies. He still chose to believe the 400. Track record is probabilistic, not certain. And 2 Kings 3 shows that a prophet with an impeccable track record (Elisha) can prophesy a victory that does not occur. If Elisha can be wrong (or overridden by Chemosh), then no prophet’s track record guarantees future accuracy.
Test Four: The Prophet’s Willingness to Suffer
The Problem: Micaiah was willing to die for his message. So were many false prophets in other religions. Martyrdom proves sincerity, not accuracy. A sincerely deceived prophet (like the 400) might also be willing to suffer if he believed his message was from God.
The Theological Consequences
The arguments above are sound, then the following conclusions follow:
1. There is no objective, reliable criterion for distinguishing true prophecy from false in real time.
A person standing at the gate of Samaria with Ahab has no rational basis to choose between Micaiah and the 400 prophets. Both groups speak in the name of the Lord. Both may be sincere. One group is deceived. There is no external test available before the event that resolves the question.
2. The Lord can and does authorize deception.
The text of 1 Kings 22 is unambiguous: the Lord commissions a lying spirit to deceive prophets. This means that any prophet at any time could be the vehicle of divine deception. The reader of the Bible has no guarantee that any given prophetic book was not produced under the influence of a divinely sent lying spirit.
3. Other gods (or the spiritual entities behind them) have real power.
The plain reading of 2 Kings 3 is that Chemosh responded to child sacrifice with military effect against an army blessed by the Lord’s prophet. Whether Chemosh is a god, a demon, or a literary device, the narrative presents a rival deity successfully opposing the Lord’s plan. This undercuts any strong monotheism that claims the Lord alone acts in history. It also supports henotheism which is presented throughout the Bible.
4. Biblical prophecy is not a reliable basis for knowledge about God.
If prophecy can be deceived by divine design, and if rival deities can thwart prophetic predictions, then the prophetic corpus of the Bible cannot be trusted as a secure foundation for theology. The claims of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the minor prophets rest on the same prophetic mechanism that produced the 400 deceived prophets of 1 Kings 22. There is no external verification available to the modern reader that distinguishes true biblical prophets from false ones.
Possible Responses from Believing Scholarship.
Response 1: The Canonical Context
Believing scholars argue that the Bible as a whole provides its own hermeneutic. The lying spirit episode is a judgment on Ahab’s hardness of heart. The Chemosh episode shows the horror of child sacrifice, not Chemosh’s power. When read in the full canon—from Genesis to Revelation—these episodes do not undermine trust but reinforce the sovereignty of the Lord who uses even deception and foreign gods for his purposes.
Prima Qur’an response: This response assumes what it needs to prove—that the canon as a whole is trustworthy. The question at issue is whether the prophetic mechanism itself is reliable. Citing other biblical passages does not solve the problem because those passages come through the same unreliable prophetic mechanism. This is circular reasoning.
Response 2: Divine Accommodation
Some theologians argue that the Bible accommodates itself to ancient Near Eastern ways of thinking. The authors of 1 Kings and 2 Kings believed that other gods existed and that the Lord could use lying spirits.
Prima Qur’an Response: If the Bible accommodates false beliefs (that other gods exist, that the Lord sends lying spirits), then on what basis can any part of the Bible be trusted as accurate? Accommodationism is a slippery slope. If the Bible is wrong about the existence of Chemosh and the mechanism of divine deception, it could be wrong about anything. The reader is left with no objective criterion for deciding which parts are accommodation and which are truth.
Response 3: Existential Trust
Some theologians argue that faith does not rest on objective criteria. Faith is a leap. The absence of certainty is the condition for authentic trust. The objective uncertainty of prophecy is not a bug but a feature.
Prima Qur’an Response: This is an honest attempt at a response but it concedes the argument. If faith requires a leap without objective evidence, then the claim that “the Bible is reliable” is not a rational conclusion but a personal commitment. The skeptic who demands objective grounds for belief is not refuted; they are simply told that faith does not provide what they seek. That is a defensible position on the basis of faith alone, but it abandons any claim to rational demonstration.
Conclusion
The Bible itself provides no objective, reliable criterion for distinguishing true prophecy from false. The lying spirit of 1 Kings 22 demonstrates that sincere prophets speaking in the name of the Lord can be deceived by divine commission. The God of Chemosh in 2 Kings 3 demonstrates that rival deities (or the spiritual powers behind them) can successfully oppose armies blessed by the Lord’s true prophets.
These passages strike at the heart of biblical authority. If the prophetic mechanism is unreliable, then the prophetic books of the Bible are unreliable. If the Bible cannot provide a rational basis for trusting its own prophets, then the God of the Bible cannot be known with certainty through the Bible.
This does not prove that God does not exist. It proves something narrower but still devastating: the Bible does not give its readers a reliable, objective method for knowing that its prophets speak truth rather than a lying spirit. For anyone who demands rational grounds for belief, this is sufficient reason to withhold trust.
May Allah guide the sincere among the Jews and the Christians so that they do not enter the hellfire.
“O People of the Book! Now Our Messenger has come to you, revealing much of what you have hidden of the book and disregarding much. There certainly has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book. through which Allah guides those who seek His pleasure to the ways of peace, brings them out of darkness and into light by His Will, and guides them to the Straight Path. (Qur’an 5:15-16)
﷽
Henotheism is the worship of a single, supreme deity while acknowledging or accepting the existence of other, lesser gods.
Monotheism is the belief in the existence of only one god, or the oneness of God, distinguishing it from polytheism (many gods) and atheism.
The cypher of The Tetragrammaton revealed.
Tetra =4.
Gramma= letter.
Aton (Aten).
The Bible claims that their god used to be called ‘Baal’.
“And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal.’ (Hosea 2:16)
Ba’al (בעל) is the most commonly used in modern Hebrew for husband.
“Eluzai, Jerimoth, Bealiah, Shemariah and Shephatiah the Haruphite…” (1 Chronicles 12:5)
Bealiah which means Jehovah is Baal.
However, because the name Baal had become so associated with the Canaanite deity, there becomes a prohibition that commands Israel to stop using that title for Him altogether . This also proves that Israelites were using the same name for their God prior to this prohibition.
Barnes’ notes on the Bible has the following:
“God says, “so wholly do I hate the name of idols, that on account of the likeness of the word Baal, “my Lord,” I will not be so called even in a right meaning, lest, while she utter the one, she should think on the other, and calling Me her Husband, think on the idol.”
Think of it like this. Maybe there was a woman married to a man named Thomas. This woman received a divorce from Thomas. Now this woman is married to you and your name happens to also be Thomas. So, during intimacy, it is possible that you would not want her to call out your name as it could be awkward.
In the Qur’an Allah (swt) has never once been identified with Baal.
In fact, the two are contrasted and never conflated.
“When he said to his people, “Will you not fear Allah ?”Will you call upon Baal and forsake the Best of Creators.” (Qur’an 37:124-125)
The Bible portrays Jesus as a rebelious son who went away from Elyon (God) and sacrificed to Baals and burned incense to images.
Hosea 11:1-2 in context says:
“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more they were called, the more they went away from me.They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.” (Hosea 11:1-2)
The Qur’an presents clear monotheism.
“Allah! There is no god except Him, the Ever-Living, All-Sustaining.” (Qur’an 2:255)
Say, He Allah is Absolute. That which is independent of all but which all things are dependent upon. He does not bring for like kind nor was he from like kind And there is no equivalent to His being Absolute. (Qur’an 112:1-4)
This powerful surah is absolutely uncompromising.
We need to explain the reasons why we translate the text as we do.
Say, He Allah is Absolute.
We make a crucial distinction that most English translations obscure. Wāḥid appears throughout the Qur’an (e.g., 2:163, 5:73, 14:48) and means “one” in a numerical, countable sense. Aḥad, by contrast, appears in this surah and carries a different weight.
Wāḥid = one as opposed to two or more (quantitative oneness)
Aḥad = absolute, unique, singular without composition or peer (qualitative oneness)
Our translation of Aḥad as “Absolute” is therefore more precisethan “One,” which conflates Aḥad with Wāḥid. The standard “One and Only” tries to bridge this but still leans on number. “Absolute” correctly captures the mode of oneness rather than the count.
On Al-Ṣamad. That which is independent of all but which all things are dependent upon.
Standard translations (“Eternal,” “Absolute,” “Self-Sufficient,” “The Uncaused Cause”) each capture one facet. Our full clause—“That which is independent of all but which all things are dependent upon”—is arguably the most complete English rendering possible. It combines:
Negative theology (not dependent on anything)
Positive theology (all depend on Him)
Causal primacy (uncaused cause)
Implication: This is not a liability but an advantage. It sacrifices brevity (the Arabic Ṣamad is one word) but gains clarity. For a translation intended for study rather than liturgical memorization, this is defensible.
Why we do not render the text as “begets not nor is begotten”. He does not bring for like kind nor was he from like kind.
If Allah came from something else (was begotten): He would share a genus with that something else (both would be “things that originated from a prior cause”).
If something like Him came from Allah (begets): That something would share a genus with Allah (both would be “beings that produce likenesses”).
Either scenario destroys absoluteness. A truly absolute being has no genus. Genus implies shared properties, limitations, and comparability. An absolute being is sui generis in the literal sense: of its own kind.
Therefore, “does not bring for like kind nor was he from like kind” is theologically superior to “begets not nor is begotten” because:
It explicitly targets category membership, not biological process.
It avoids the English word “beget,” which confuses modern readers.
It closes the door on Neoplatonic emanation (where lower realities come from higher ones “like kind” in a chain of being) as well as Christian Trinitarian generation.
Implication: Our translation is a more universal negation of ontological continuity between Allah and creation than the conventional one. It addresses Christianity, Neoplatonism, certain Hindu cosmologies (e.g., prakriti giving birth to purusha-like realities), and any emanationist or filial model.
And there is no equivalent to His being Absolute.
Absoluteness is a maximal property. If two things were both absolute, each would limit the other’s absoluteness (each would fail to be absolute relative to the other). Absoluteness entails uniqueness necessarily, not accidentally.
Our final line—“no equivalent to his being absolute”—thus correctly implies that the property itself cannot be instantiated in any other subject. The property is self-uniquifying.
It is clear that Islam is monotheistic.
This is unlike the bible where someone could become like the God (Elyon) or like the deities in his assembly.
“And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.(Genesis 3:22-23)
“And the ETERNAL God said, “Now that humankind has become likeany of us, knowing good and bad, what if one should stretch out a hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!” (Genesis 3:22) –Source: (https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.3.22)
It is interesting that the Jews at Sefaria have translated the text as the Eternal God was worried that Adam may eat from a tree that would give him the property of living forever. This would make him like ‘any of us’.
Paul being the henotheist that he is says:
“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many; yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.” (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)
“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish: in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.” (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)
Paul concedes that there’s a “god of this world” separate from his god. He acknowledges that there are many gods. He just simply says that for him and his sect, they only worship one god, whom they call, ‘The Father’.
The TNCH or what the Christians call the Old Testament is replete with henotheistic passages. The Children of Israel went through different phases worshipping different gods at different times and even had a massive civil war over the matter.
You will notice when studying that the names of several deities names pop up time and again. These names are often conflated with the various other deities that the Children of Israel worshipped.
Perhaps the most damning evidence is as follows:
“When the Most High gave the nations thier inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel. For the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his alloted inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 32:8-9)
“Masoretic Text; Dead Sea Scrolls (see also Septuagint)sons of God.”
How does the New Revised Standard Version render the reading?
“When the Most High gave the nations thier inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the gods; For the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his alloted inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 32:8-9)
How did the transition from “bene Elohim” (sons of God) to “bene Yisrael” (sons of Israel) occur in Deuteronomy 32:8? The timing remains unknown. Whether this change took place during the intertestamental period or at the time of the text’s standardization around 100 AD — we simply do not know when it happened. But this much is certain: a scribe altered the text. Someone deliberately replaced “sons of God” with “sons of Israel.” The exact date of this change is unknown, but the fact that it occurred is beyond dispute. We know this because the Masoretic Text contains the altered reading, while the Dead Sea Scrolls preserve the original. And the Dead Sea Scrolls predate the Masoretic text by a full millennium. Israel is not even in existence when the nations are divided!
A scribe removed the three letters you see in green and added the two letters you see in red.
What does this mean?
Elyon was to be the god of Jacob and his people. The sons of Elyon. Or the other gods were to be for the other nations. In other words the main God (Elyon) divided Earth up among regional deities.
We see this in the following text:
“Will you not possess whatever Chemosh your god gives you to possess? So whatever the Lord our God takes possession of before us, we will possess.” (Judges 11:24)
It mentions that Chemosh is the god of the Ammonites, just as Israel has their own god.
“You shall have no other gods before/beside me.” (Exodus 20:3)
“You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,” (Exodus 20:5)
“Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” (Exodus 34:14)
“You shall have no other gods before/beside me.” (Deuteronomy 5:7)
These text are not a denial of other gods or deities. In fact, the above text describe this god as a jealous god.
This understanding of jealousy is a complex, often unpleasant emotion stemming from fear, insecurity, or a perceived threat to a valued relationship or status. It arises when someone feels threatened by a rival.
The way the Bible portrays this jealousy its as if the god of the children of Israel is in a genus. Even though this god acknowledges that he is superior there is a sort of pathological jealousy at play here.
“God(Elyon) stands in the congregation of the mighty; he judges among the gods.” (Pslam 82:1)
This verse indicates a superior deity presiding over lesser beings. A god among gods.
The Qur’an never describes Allah as a god among gods. Rather it negates any other deity except him.
Insh’Allah we will come back to (Pslam 82:1)
There is an interesting connection between Moloch and the god that the Children of Israel worshipped.
“Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.” (Genesis 14:18-20)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
Melchizedek is said to be a priest of God Most High, (Elyon). In other words the chief god.
Melchizedek needs to clarify who the (Elyon) Most High is. He is the Creator of heaven and earth.
“The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek'” (Psalm 110:4)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
Notice that this does not identify or equate the priest as Melchizedek but that he would be priest in his order.
“Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.” (Hebrews 7:3)
Whoever wrote the book of Hebrews must have had some access to extra Biblical data about Melchizedek that we do not know about.
What is interesting is the word translated as Melchizedek: Righteous King can easily be translated as Righteous Moloch.
We also have the following interesting text.
“Adonizedek, the king of Jerusalem, heard that Joshua had captured and totally destroyed Ai and had killed its king, just as he had done to Jericho and its king. He also heard that the people of Gibeon had made peace with the Israelites and were living among them. The people of Jerusalem were greatly alarmed at this because Gibeon was as large as any of the cities that had a king; it was larger than Ai, and its men were good fighters. So Adonizedek sent the following message to King Hoham of Hebron, King Piram of Jarmuth, King Japhia of Lachish, and to King Debir of Eglon. (Joshua 10:1-3)
Adonizedek is an interesting name. It means Adon is Zedek. Adon (Aton/Aten) is Righteous.
However, it can also mean that Adon is Zedek. My Lord is Zedek.
(Moloch) is a god satiated by human suffering. In particular the sacrifice of innocent children.
He is a god of holocaust. However, anyone who is a Christian will understand a deity who is satiated through the suffering of children, in particular one of his own.
“A divinity worshipped by the idolatrousIsraelites. The Hebrew pointing Molech does not represent the original pronunciation of the name, any more than the Greek vocalization Moloch found in the LXX and in the Acts (vii, 43). The primitive title of this god was very probably Melech, “king”, the consonants of which came to be combined through derision with the vowels of the word Bosheth, “shame”. As the word Moloch (A.V. Molech) means king, it is difficult in several places of the Old Testament to determine whether it should be considered as the proper name of a deity or as a simple appellative. The passages of the original text in which the name stands probably for that of a god are Lev., xviii, 21; xx, 2-5; III (A. V. I) Kings, xi, 7; IV (II) Kings, xxiii, 10; Isaiah 30:33; 57:9; Jeremiah 32:35. The chief feature of Moloch’s worship among the Jews seems to have been the sacrifice of children, and the usual expression for describing that sacrifice was “to pass through the fire”, a rite carried out after the victims had been put to death. The special centre of such atrocities was just outside of Jerusalem, at a place called Tophet (probably “place of abomination”), in the valley of Geennom. According to III (I) Kings, xi, 7, Solomon erected “a temple” for Moloch “on the hill over against Jerusalem”, and on this account he is at times considered as the monarch who introduced the impious cult into Israel. After the disruption, traces of Moloch worship appear in both Juda and Israel. The custom of causing one’s children to pass through the fire seems to have been general in the Northern Kingdom [IV (II) Kings, xvii, 17; Ezech. xxiii, 37], and it gradually grew in the Southern, encouraged by the royal example of Achaz (2 Kings 16:3) and Manasses [IV (II) Kings, xvi, 6] till it became prevalent in the time of the prophet Jeremias (Jerem. xxxii, 35), when King Josias suppressed the worship of Moloch and defiled Tophet [IV (II) Kings, xxiii, 13 (10)]. It is not improbable that this worship was revived under Joakim and continued until the Babylonian Captivity.”
“Aaron answered them, “Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me.” So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, “These are your gods,[b] Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, “Tomorrow there will be a festival to the Lord.” So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry. Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, ‘These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.’” (Exodus 32:2-8)
Prima Qur’an comments:
Prophet Aaron is claimed to have made an idol in the shape of a calf.
The people also said: These are your gods (plural) that brought you (Israel) out of Egypt.
The god that is speaking to moses reaffirms the above two points. Especially: “These are your gods,Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.”
Notice the translation is not sure if the word should be gods or god. However, it is clarified in what was said to Moses by the god that spoke to him. The people were claiming gods (plural) brought them out of Egypt.
Is it not very odd that it is claimed a prophet and servant of the One True God who witnessed miracles would so quickly go and do something like this in the absence of his brother (Moses)?
No one seems to the object to the idea that gods (not god) brought them out of Egypt.
During the civil war of Israel the following happened.
“After seeking advice, the king made two golden calves. He said to the people, “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” One he set up in Bethel, and the other in Dan. And this thing became a sin; the people came to worship the one at Bethel and went as far as Dan to worship the other.” (1 Kings 12:28-30)
Jewish Rabbis have debates about what type of worship of Molech is acceptable and what is not.
The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 64a):
“HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, OR THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO PENALTY, UNLESS HE DOES BOTH.”
Observation: The rabbis are parsing the precise act that constitutes a capital offense. Both elements are required: (1) delivering to Molech’s priests, and (2) causing the child to pass through fire.
The Gemara Discussion:
“R. Abin said: Our Mishnah is in accordance with the view that Molech worship is not idolatry. For it has been taught, whether to Molech or to any other idol he is liable. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: If to Molech, he is liable; if to another idol, he is not.”
This is striking. Some rabbis consider Molech worship not to be idolatry — or at least different in kind from other idol worship. Why?
“R. Hanina b. Antigonus said: Why did the Torah employ the word Molech? To teach that the same law applies to whatever they proclaimed as their king, even a pebble or a splinter.”
Molech is not necessarily a specific deity — it is any deity to whom one transfers sovereignty (“king”) over oneself. The rabbis are working hard to define the boundary.
The Critical Question the Rabbis Are Avoiding
If a Jew offered his child as a burnt offering to Yahweh, would that be permitted?
The rabbis do not address this directly. But their silence is telling.
Jephthah in Rabbinic Literature:
The Talmud (Ta’anit 4a) and later rabbinic commentary do address Jephthah — and they are highly critical of him. The general rabbinic view is that Jephthah should have sought to annul his vow through a sage, and that his failure to do so resulted in tragedy. Some rabbis even say he was punished for his foolishness (losing parts of his body, dying unnaturally).
However — and this is crucial — the rabbis never say that what Jephthah did was inherently impossible or categorically forbidden. They criticize his failure to seek annulment, not the act of human sacrifice itself. They also note that his daughter (like Isaac) was willing.
The Nakdimon Connection
One of the most revealing texts appears in the Babylonian Talmud (Nedarim 37a) and is cited in the Soncino commentary on Sanhedrin 64a. Rabbi Dr. Freedman, the translator, notes:
“The offering of children to Molech was not regarded as ordinary idolatry, but as a distinct offence. One reason is that it involved the destruction of one’s seed — an act of cruelty which even pagans normally did not practice. Another is that it was sometimes done in the name of the Lord, as in the case of Jephthah.”
Read that again: “It was sometimes done in the name of the Lord, as in the case of Jephthah.”
The rabbis knew that child sacrifice had been performed in Israel in the name of Yahweh. They were not condemning the practice universally — they were trying to regulate it, to distinguish between “legitimate” (Yahwistic) and “illegitimate” (pagan) contexts.
The god of Israel (Yahweh) is apparently satiated by human suffering. In particular the sacrifice of innocent children.
In (2 Samuel 21), David is king over Judah. A famine oppresses the land; King David learns that LORD God is punishing Israel for King Saul’s sin (Saul attacked the Gibeonites in violation of Joshua’s treaty (Joshua 9:15). Therefore, in order to relieve the famine, David must appease the Gibeonites. On negotiation, the Gibeonites demand to be given seven descendants of Saul to be hanged “unto the LORD.” David picks two of Saul’s sons and five of Saul’s grandsons. Coincidentally, the five grandsons are the children of Michal, the woman David had wanted to marry (see 1 Samuel 18:25). David gives these Israelites to the Gibeonites so the Gibeonites can hang them.
“Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David inquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites. And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them: and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah.) Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the LORD? And the Gibeonites said unto him, We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel. And he said, What ye shall say, that will I do for you. And they answered the king, The man that consumed us, and that devised against us that we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel, Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, whom the LORD did choose. And the king said, I will give them. But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of the LORD’s oath that was between them, between David and Jonathan the son of Saul. But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of barley harvest.” Source: (2 Samuel 21:1-11)
Prima Qur’an Comments: The God (Elyon) did not explicitly request the hangings. But The God (Elyon) imposed an insufferable famine on the Israelites, The God (Elyon) named the Gibeonites as the people to be appeased, and the Gibeonites named the penalty. When it was done, The God (Elyon) apparently found the human sacrifice to be satisfactory: the chapter continues with accounts of battles, and the famine is not mentioned further. This sequence — an angry god causes a natural disaster, innocent life is slain to appease the god’s anger, and the hardship ceases — this is the same sequence of events found in the human sacrifice rites of other primitive religions.
The God (Elyon) of the Bible did not stop Jephthah from burning his small daughter if the God (Elyon)gave him victory over his enemies.
“Then the Spirit of the Lord came on Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands. He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon. When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.” “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.” “You may go,” He said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin. (Judges 11:29-39)
Prima Qur’an Comments: Now there is major major copium from Christians and Jews regarding this.
Copium # 1. They try and put a spin that the sacrifice is to dedicate his daughter to the Lord as a virgin (meaning temple service) and Jephthah bemoaned that due this he would never have any descendants. Response: and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering & After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed The emphasis on her being a virgin is so she would be an unblemished sacrificed.
Copium #2. The God (Elyon) commands against sacrificing Children in the Bible.
Response. No, no he doesn’t!
“You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 18:21)
“I will also set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given some of his offspring to Molech, so as to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name.” (Leviticus 20:3)
“You shall not behave thus toward the Lord your God, for every abominable act which the Lord hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.” (Deuteronomy 12:31)
As well as the related practice of passing the children through the fire and not consuming them by the fire:
“There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer.” (Deuteronomy 18:10)
“You shall also say to the sons of Israel: ‘Any man from the sons of Israel or from the aliens sojourning in Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones.” (Leviticus 20:2)
Offering your children up as a burnt offering is not against the Torah teachings of the Jews. Nor was it something unacceptable to God. The offence in question was offering them up to Molech and NOT THE GOD (ELYON) OF ISRAEL!
“For I the Lord your God am a jealous God.” (Daniel 5:9)
This god that they worshipped is not against sacrifice or burnt offerings as we have already shown above. Their god
There is no issue with offering up children as a holocaust (burnt offering) to their god. The issue is doing it to false gods.
“They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molek, though I never commanded—nor did it enter my mind—that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.” (Jeremiah 32:35)
Because the Elyon, The High God of the Bible is jealous.
Did we forget?
“After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” (Genesis 22:1-2)
The Angel of the Lord as Satan and one of the gods among gods in the Bible.
In the Hebrew Bible, ha-satan (הַשָּׂטָן) is not a proper name but a title: “the Adversary” or “the Accuser” . This figure appears in the divine council — the assembly of elohim (divine beings) over which Elyon presides as supreme. Ha-Satan is not a rival god or a fallen angel — he is a subordinate being within Elyon’s administration. As one scholar puts it: “The Satan is a member of the divine council, serving as a sort of prosecutor or royal spy” (Peggy L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven).
“I was further shown Joshua, the high priest, standing before the angel of GOD, and the Accuser (Satan) standing at his right to accuse him. But [the angel of] GOD said to the Accuser (Satan), “GOD rebukes you, O Accuser; GOD who has chosen Jerusalem rebukes you! For this is a brand plucked from the fire.”
Here you have Ha-Satan standing at the right hand of the Angel of the LORD to accuse Joshua the high priest. Elyon (the Most High God) rebukes Ha-Satan.
“One day the divine beings presented themselves before GOD. The Adversary came along with them to present himself before GOD. GOD said to the Adversary, “Where have you been?” The Adversary answered GOD, “I have been roaming all over the earth.” GOD said to the Adversary, “Have you noticed My servant Job? There is no one like him on earth, a blameless and upright man who fears God and shuns evil. He still keeps his integrity; so you have incited Me against him to destroy him for no good reason. The Adversary answered GOD, “Skin for skin—all that the man has he will give up for his life. But lay a hand on his bones and his flesh, and he will surely blaspheme You to Your face.” So GOD said to the Adversary, “See, he is in your power; only spare his life.”The Adversary departed from GOD’s presence and inflicted a severe inflammation on Job from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.”
Here you have Ha-Satan appearing among the bene ha-elohim (sons of God) and acting as a prosecuting attorney, testing Job’s righteousness with Elyon’s permission. He is not an enemy of Elyon but a member of His court.
The Angel of the LORD as a Satan in Numbers 22
This is a fascinating and often overlooked passage.
The Narrative: Balaam is hired by Balak of Moab to curse Israel. He consults God (Elyon) who tells him not to go. Balak sends more prestigious messengers; Balaam asks again; God (Elyon)permits him to go but with conditions. On the way:
“But God’s anger was kindled because he went, and the Angel of the LORD stationed himself in the road as an adversary (satan) against him.” (Numbers 22:22)
Analysis:
The Hebrew word used for “adversary” is precisely לְשָׂטָן (l’satan) — “as a satan.”
The Angel of the LORD — generally understood as a manifestation of God (Elyon) Himself (since the Angel speaks as God and is worshipped as God elsewhere) — functions as an obstructor or adversary to Balaam.
This same Angel later permits Balaam to continue (Numbers 22:35).
What this means: God (Elyon)through His Angel) acts as both a guide and an adversary. The same being who permits Balaam to go also stands in his way as a satan. This shows that the role of “adversary” is not a separate being but a function that even God(Elyon) can perform.
As one commentary notes: “The Angel of the LORD acts as Balaam’s ‘adversary’ (satan)… This is the only place in the Old Testament where the Angel of the LORD is explicitly called a satan” (Gordon Wenham, Numbers).
“O Lord, you have deceived me, and I was deceived; you are stronger than I, and you have prevailed.” (Jeremiah 20:7)
Henotheism is the worship of one primary deity while accepting the existence of other gods within a pantheon. It is sort of a pantheon. As a middle ground between polytheism and monotheism, it allows followers to focus devotion on a single “king god”—such as Zeus, Odin, or in some forms of Hinduism—while recognizing other divine beings.
This is why we can have text like the following:
Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” (2 Samuel 24:1)
“Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.” (1 Chronicles 21:1)
This would seem to be a contradiction but when we realize that they are basically one and the same it makes sense from a henotheistic worldview.
The biblical divine council — with its bene ha-elohim, ha-satan as prosecutor, and the Angel of the LORD as a distinct yet divine figure — is not compatible with Islamic tawhid (radical monotheism). Whether the figure in question is called Baal, Molech, Yahweh, or Ha-Satan, the Qur’an would reject any theology that places other divine beings beside Allah.
Qur’an Surah 112 has been shown to absolutely demolish this framework.
Yahweh seems to be a sort of tribal war deity or war angel as presented in the TNCH. The part of the Bible the Christians call: ‘The Old Testament.’
The term Tzva’ot refers to armies or hosts. (Hebrew: Yahweh Tzva’ot) is a divine title in the Bible appearing over 200 times, primarily in the Old Testament, designating Yahweh as the god over all heavenly and earthly armies.
“Yahweh of Armies is with us. The God of Jacob is our refuge. “ (Pslam 46:7)
“Each year Elkanah would travel to Shiloh to worship and sacrifice to the LORD of Heaven’s Armies at the Tabernacle. The priests of the LORD at that time were the two sons of Eli—Hophni and Phinehas.” (1 Samuel 1:3)
“The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.” (Exodus 15:3)
You even have henotheistic views put in the mouth of the One True God’s Prophets!
“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God (τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεόν), and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (John 17:3)
Here he could have simply said “only God.” By adding “true” (ἀληθινός), he leaves open the possibility that other beings exist who could be called “gods” (elohim) — but they are not the true God.
The Jehovah’s Witness have translated John 1:1 as:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1)
“Who among the gods is like you, Lord?” (Exodus 15:11)
“For the Lord is the great God, the great King above all gods.” (Pslam 95:3)
“All who worship images are put to shame, those who boast in idols—Worship him, all you gods!” (Psalm 97:7)
“For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.” (Deuteronomy 10:17)
This is far from monotheism. This is far from what is presented in the Qur’an.
Is it little wonder we those socities that succumb to these beliefs ridden with demonic forces? Even the innocent among them they have no idea what they are even worshipping! May Allah Guide these people to the truth before the burn in hellfire.
Prima Quran 
