“(We take our) colour from Allah, and who is better than Allah at colouring. We are His worshippers.” (Qur’an 2:138) -Pickthall
“(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah: And who can baptize better than Allah? And it is He Whom we worship.” (Qur’an 2:138)-Yusuf Ali.
﷽
(Pictured above is Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h) in a light moment.)
The following is a transcript of the respected Shaykh, Ahmed Al Khalili (h).
“The baptism of Allah” and who is better than Allah in baptism? And we are His worshippers. There is much disagreement concerning the meaning of “ṣibghah ” here; however, we find this disagreement expressed in two main views.
The first view is held by those who say that what is meant by “ṣibghah ” here is whatAllah may He be exalted and glorified has instilled in the hearts of His believing servants of loyalty to Him, obedience to Him, faith in Him and in the prophets, faith in what was revealed to them, and action in accordance with that faith. This view indicates that Allah may He be exalted has planted the meanings of faith in the believers, and its effects have appeared in their conduct. These effects are like an outward, visible dye, by which they are distinguished from all other people.
The terms ṣibghah and ṣibgh are also used to refer to character, dispositions, and the upbringing that a father gives his children. An example is the poet’s saying: “Every people have their own dye/character, and the dye/character of Hamdan is the best of dyes; we raise our children upon that, so how excellent is our dye among dyers!” For what is meant by ṣibghah here is the psychological upbringing whose psychological effects manifest in behavior.
To this view reverts the interpretation of those who explain ṣibghah as religion, those who explain it as innate nature (fiṭrah), those who explain it as sacred law (sharī’ah), and those who explain it as the seal/stamp for those who interpret ṣibghah as the seal have understood the concept of ṣibghah in this sense.
The second view is that ṣibghah is mentioned by way of literary parallelism (mushākalah) specifically, confirmatory parallelism because some of the Jews, in ages past, used to perform a bath of repentance. This practice continued until it resulted in what came to be called baptism (ta’mīd) and the sacrament of baptism (ma’mūdiyyah) among some of the Christians. The origin of this was that when one of their priests offered a sacrifice of repentance for a sin he had committed, or for a sin committed by his household, as well as during festivals the festivals of repentance for the general sins of the Children of Israel they would bathe. They continued this practice.
It was said that when John son of Zechariah (peace be upon him) would call people to repentance and remorse, just as they used to repent, and he would command them to bathe in the Jordan River. This was called in Aramaic ma’mūdhā or ma’mūthā, meaning purification. When Jesus (peace be upon him) received the revelation, he had first bathed and washed. The Arabs rendered the word ma’mūdh as ma’mūl and derived from it the terms al-ta’mīd and al-ta’mud (baptism). Thus, one who converted to Christianity was said to have been “baptized” (ta’mada) if he performed that washing which is followed by entering Christianity. And they said of those priests of the Christians who administer this rite in bringing someone into Christianity that he “baptizes” (‘ammada) or is “a baptizer” (mu’ammid).
It was said that when severe disagreement arose between John son of Zechariah and Jesus (peace be upon them both) on one side, and the Jews on the other, the Jews abandoned this washing, so it remained among the Christians and they continued it. Some of them began baptizing their children on the seventh day, saying to the one they baptized on that day: “Today you have truly become an Israelite” that is, on the seventh day after his birth, they wash him in water. This water is kept in basins in the churches, and they claim that in this water there are remnants of the water with which Jesus (peace be upon him) bathed and which dripped from his body. Whenever the water is about to run out, they add new water to it, so that those drops which they claim remain would continue to exist in that water. This water is what is called “the water of baptism” (mā’ al-ma’mūliyyah).
Based on this based on this view the noble verse contains a parallelism, meaning: If you are immersing yourselves in this water by which you enter into your religion, or by which you bring people into your religion, or by which you bring your children into your religion, then we have been dyed with Allah’s baptism.
It is also said that this water the Jews used to call ghimās in the bath from ṣaba’a yaṣba’u meaning “to immerse” in the Hebrew language. When the Arabs Arabized that, they disliked using the root ṣ-b-‘_ because it does not convey this meaning in Arabic. So they rendered this word using the root ṣ-b-gh instead. That is why it was called ṣibgh, ṣibghah, and ṣibghah.
As for ṣibghah it is either a verbal noun indicating a state or manner, like jilsah (a sitting posture), or it is a passive participle, because the passive participle can come on the pattern fi’l and fi’lah as in ṭiḥn meaning “ground flour,” wid meaning “found,” ḥib meaning “beloved” and likewise it comes on the pattern fi’lah when one intends femininity, like ṣibghah and wishqah for something split/cracked.
There is much disagreement regarding the grammatical declension of ṣibghah here. Some say that ṣibghah is a substitute (badal) for “the religion of Abraham” (millat Ibrāhīm) so whoever reads millata Ibrāhīma in the accusative, reads ṣibghata in the accusative; and whoever reads it in the nominative, reads ṣibghatu in the nominative. Others say it is an emphatic verbal noun (maṣdar mu’akkid) that emphasizes the meaning in Allah’s saying: “Say: We believe in Allah and what was revealed to us…” i.e., faith as Allah’s baptism; this faith is the baptism. Some say it is an emphasis for the entire preceding sentence, as in Allah’s saying may He be exalted “And on that day the believers will rejoice in Allah’s help; He helps whom He wills, and He is the Mighty, the Merciful. [This is] Allah’s promise” so the verbal noun “Allah’s promise” emphasizes the entire preceding sentence, not a previously implied verbal noun. Similarly, “The baptism of Allah” “And who is better than Allah in baptism?” i.e., we are baptized/immersed in Allah’s baptism, or the religion of Abraham is Allah’s baptism, or faith is Allah’s baptism, or adherence to Allah’s baptism. “And who is better than Allah in baptism?” — i.e., who is there whose baptism is better than Allah’s baptism? The interrogative here is rhetorical, meaning negation, indicating denial.
“And we are His worshippers” i.e., we are submissive to Him, or we are obedient to Him, or we are humbly devoted to Him, or we are submissive to Him. All of this has been mentioned in the interpretation of worship (‘ibādah) and servitude (u’būdah), as previously explained in Sūrat al-Fātiḥah that it is absolute humility that emanates from the soul with a consciousness inspired by correct belief in the Creator, may He be exalted and glorified. This is the correct worship required of man.
“And we are His” i.e., for Allah alone, not for any other i.e., we do not associate any partner with Him “worshippers.” Therefore, the related element (the prepositional phrase) is placed before the predicate (‘ābidūn) to indicate exclusivity. In this there is a subtle allusion to the Jews and Christians who worshipped other than Allah, may He be exalted and glorified.
We will now conclude at this point, asking Allah may He be exalted for success and right guidance. He is the One who grants success. And may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon our master Muḥammed, and upon his family and all his companions. Exalted is your Lord, the Lord of might, above what they describe. And peace be upon the messengers. And praise be to Allah, Lord of all worlds.
The following is from Dr. Ahmed bin Jabir Al Miskiri (h). May Allah (swt) reward him for this. It is a more precise and technical understanding of the above discussion.
baptism/colouring] of Allah. And who is better than Allah in baptism? And we are worshippers of Him.” There has been much disagreement regarding the sibghah, yet we restrict this disagreement to two opinions: The first is the view of those who said that what is meant by the sibghah here is what Allah, the Glorified and Exalted, has infused into the hearts of His believing servants of their loyalty and obedience to Allah, the Glorified and Exalted, their belief in Him, in the prophets, and in what was sent down to them, and their acting in accordance with this faith. For this opinion indicates that Allah, the Glorified and Exalted, implanted in the believers the matters of faith, so their effects appeared upon their conduct, making these effects akin to a clear, manifest dye, by which they were distinguished from all other people.
The Arabs apply the term sibghah to morals, natural dispositions, and the upbringing with which a father raises his sons. From that is the poet’s saying: “And every people have a sibghah, and the sibghah of Hamdan is the best of sibgh; we have dyed our sons upon that, so how noble is our sibghah in the sibgh!” Indeed, what is meant by sibghah here is the upbringing whose psychological effects appear in conduct. And to this opinion returns the view of whoever interpreted sibghah as religion, whoever interpreted sibghah as the natural disposition (fitrah), whoever interpreted sibghah as the divine law (sharia), and whoever interpreted sibghah as circumcision. By my life, indeed whoever interpreted sibghah as circumcision has certainly narrowed the concept of sibghah!
The second opinion is that sibghah was mentioned by way of estimated matching (mushākalah); becauses some of the Jews, in bygone ages, used to perform the ritual bath of repentance, and this ritual bath continued until it resulted in what came to be called baptism and baptismal practices among some of the Christians. And the origin of that: that the priests one of them, when presenting a sacrifice of repentance for a sin he committed or a sin committed by the people of his household, and likewise during the feasts of repentance for the general sins of the Children of Israel used to bathe, and they continued to do so.
It was said that when John the son of Zechariah, peace be upon him, was calling the people to repentance, and whenever they repented, he would command them to bathe from the stream of the Jordan. And this was called in the Aramaic language (ma’mūdhut or ma’mūdhutā) meaning purification. And Jesus, peace be upon him, when he received the revelation, had first taken a bath and washed. The Arabs arabized the word (ma’mūdhut) into the word (ma’mūd), and they derived from it baptism (ta’mīd) and being baptized (ta’amud). So it was said of one who Christianized: “He was baptized” when he performed that bath which is followed by his embracing of Christianity. And they said of whoever performs that from among the Christian priests in admitting someone into Christianity: “He baptizes” or “he is a baptizer.”
It was said that when the severe disagreement arose between John the son of Zechariah and Jesus, peace be upon them, on the one hand, and the Jews on the other hand, the Jews abandoned this ritual bath, so it remained among some of the Christians and they persisted in it. And some of them when they began to baptize their children on the seventh day, and they say to the one for whom they baptized: “Today you have truly become a Christian.” The child on the seventh day of his birth is washed by them in water. This water is prepared in basins in the churches, and they claim that in this water are remnants of the water with which Jesus, peace be upon him, washed and which dripped from his body.
Whenever the water was on the verge of running out, they added new water to it so that those droplets which they claim remain present in that water might persist; this water is what is called the water of baptism. Based on this opinion, there is in the noble verse a matching (mushākalah); meaning: If you dye yourselves with this water with which you enter your religion, or with which you bring people into your religion, or with which you bring your children into your religion, then we have indeed dyed ourselves with the sibghah of Allah, the Exalted.
It is said that this water the Jews used to call the act of dipping into it (al-sab’-) from (saba’a, yasba’u) meaning to plunge in the Hebrew language. When the Arabs arabized that, they found it distasteful to use the root (saba’a) because it is a root that does not indicate this meaning in the Arabic language, so they arabized this word by dotting the ghayn (changing it to sabagha). Therefore, that was called sabghan, sibghan, and sibghah.
And sibghah is either an infinitive noun indicating state/manner like al-jilsah, or it is a passive participle, because the passive participle is brought in the measure of fi’l and fi’lah, like tihlun meaning ground, jaddun meaning existing, and hibbun meaning beloved. Likewise, the measure of fi’lah is brought when feminine intent is intended, like sibghah and shiqfah for a broken piece.
There has been much disagreement regarding the parsing (i’rāb) of al-sibghah here: some of them said that al-sibghah is in apposition (badal) to millata Ibrahima. Therefore, whoever recited millata Ibrahima in the accusative in recitation recited sibghata in the accusative, and whoever raised it raised it. And it was said: It is an emphatic verbal noun (maṣdar mu’akkid); it emphasizes the meaning in His saying, the Most High: {Say, “We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us”} meaning: as faith, the sibghah of Allah. This faith is the sibghah of Allah.
Some of them said that it is an affirmation for the entire sentence, as in his saying: It is an emphatic verbal noun for the entire preceding sentence, not an emphasis for a prior estimated verbal noun. Similar to this is the saying of Allah, the Glorified and Exalted: {And that Day the believers will rejoice * in the victory of Allah. He gives victory to whom He wills, and He is the Exalted in Might, the Merciful * The promise of Allah}. The verbal noun is wa’da Allah meaning: Allah promised you that, His promise. This verbal noun emphasizes the entire preceding sentence: Sibghata Allah wa man ahsana min Allahi sibghah meaning: We are dyed with the sibghah of Allah, or the religion of Abraham is the sibghah of Allah, or as faith, the sibghah of Allah, or adhere to the sibghah of Allah.
And wa man ahsana min Allahi sibghah? Meaning: Which person is better in sibghah than Allah? And the intent is: Which sibghah from any person is better than the sibghah of Allah? The interrogation here is in the meaning of negation, indicating negation.
And wa nahnu lahu ‘ābidaūn; meaning: and we are submissive to Him, or and we are humbly submissive to Him, or and we are obedient to Him all of that has been said in the exegesis of worship (‘ibādah). Worship, as previously explained in Surah Al-Fatihah, is: absolute submission that stems from the soul with a feeling inspired by the correct belief in the Creator, the Glorified and Exalted; this is the correct worship required from man.
And nahnu lahu meaning to Allah alone, not to anyone else. Meaning: we do not associate anyone else with Him as worshippers (‘ābidūn). Therefore, the dependent element which is the preposition and its genitive was advanced over the dependent element which is ‘ābidūn for the sake of conferring restriction (ḥasr). And in this is an insinuation against the Jews and the Christians who worshipped other than Allah, the Glorified and Exalted.”
What are the key points from all of this?
The Two Main Interpretations
First Opinion: Metaphorical / Spiritual
Ṣibghah refers to the inward imprint of faith that Allah places in the hearts of believers.
It manifests in loyalty, obedience, belief in Allah and His prophets, and righteous action.
This faith becomes like a visible dye that distinguishes believers from others in their character and conduct.
The term is also linked to morals, natural disposition (fiṭrah), religion (dīn), divine law (sharī’ah), and even upbringing as in the poet’s example where a father “dyes” his children with his tribe’s noble values.
One interpreter even said it means circumcision, though Dr. Ahmed bin Jabir Al Miskiri (h) alternative translation adds a critical note that this narrows the concept too much.
Second Opinion: Historical / Ritual (Parallelism with some strands of Judaism and/or some strrands of Christian Baptism)
The word ṣibghah is used here as literary parallelism (mushākalah)—a rhetorical device where the Quran uses a term familiar to its audience to make a point, without adopting their literal meaning.
Background: Some Jews practiced ritual washing for repentance a practice that continued and evolved into Christian baptism (ma’mūdiyyah).
It was said that John the Baptist called people to repent and wash in the Jordan; Jesus also washed before receiving revelation.
The Aramaic term for this was ma’mūdhā (purification), which the Arabs Arabized into ma’mūd and derived ta’mīd (baptism).
It was noted that some Christian groups later baptized infants on the seventh day, using “holy water” kept in church basins. Water they believed contained remnants of the water Jesus used.
The Quranic twist: The verse is saying: “If you (Jews/Christians) dye/immerse yourselves in your ritual water, we (Muslims) have been dyed with Allah’s own baptism far superior.” It’s a rhetorical rebuttal, not an endorsement of the ritual.
3. Grammatical and Linguistic Analysis
Ṣibghah can be:
A verbal noun indicating manner/state (like jilsah = posture).
“(We take our) colour from Allah, and who is better than Allah at colouring. We are His worshippers.” (Qur’an 2:138) -Pickthall
“(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah: And who can baptize better than Allah? And it is He Whom we worship.” (Qur’an 2:138)-Yusuf Ali
“Indeed, those who have believed (amanu) and those who were Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians and all those who associated (ashraku) with Allah – Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is, over all things, Witness.” (Qur’an 22:17)
﷽
INTRODUCTION AND FRAMEWORK
I. Introduction: The Silence of the Apologists
If you were to tune into the Christian apologetic scene, they really seem to be on a tare about how Islam somehow is not in continuity with the Bible. At least that is their claim. Yet, they are awfully quiet about the biggest ritual in all of Christianity, namely the rite of baptism.
This fundamental ritual has been a matter of dispute among Christians until today. Does one get baptized in the name of Jesus only or in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?
At what age does one get baptized? Can babies get baptized or not? Does a Church less Christian have authority to baptize? Can any self-professed Christian baptize any other self-professed Christian?
Is baptism required for salvation? What happens when there is no water available? Is it enough to be baptized in water? What is baptism by the Holy Spirit?
In our view this is not discussed enough in apologetic spaces.
Baptism. That quirky ritual found neither in Judaism or Islam.
The Qur’an addresses this matter directly:
“(We take our) colour from Allah, and who is better than Allah at colouring. We are His worshippers.” (Qur’an 2:138) -Pickthall
“(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah: And who can baptize better than Allah? And it is He Whom we worship.” (Qur’an 2:138)-Yusuf Ali
“Indeed, those who have believed (amanu) and those who were Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians and all those who associated (ashraku) with Allah – Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is, over all things, Witness.” (Qur’an 22:17)
This article argues that Christian baptism, the central rite of Christianity, has no foundation in the Hebrew Bible, no clear authorization from Jesus, and no consistent theological meaning across Christian traditions. In contrast, the Qur’anic concept of “the dye of Allah” (ṣib’ghat Allāh) offers a superior framework for spiritual purification rooted in the primordial constitution (fiṭra) upon which Allah created humanity.
II. The Qur’anic Framework: Understanding “The Dye of Allah”
We have two English translations of Qur’an 2:138 as seen above. They are both sound in their meaning.
The Word sib’ghata: Literally translates to “dye” or “color”
The great scholar of tafsir Shaykh Muḥammed b. Yūsuf Aṭfayyish (r) has the following to say:
“{The dye of Allah (ṣibghat Allāh)} is the fiṭra of Allah, the primordial constitution upon which He created mankind. It is Islam, or divine enabling (tawfīq), or the conclusive proof (ḥujja); or it is the purification of the heart from unbelief and disobedience. It is likened to a dye in that it is outwardly manifest. As a dye is manifest. And an ornament; and in that it permeates the very depths of what is dyed, being firmly rooted therein; and in that by it man is set apart from all other animate creatures, and from the unbelievers, as a dyed garment is set apart. This is an explicit metaphor (istiʿāra taṣrīḥiyya), original (aṣliyya) and realized (taḥqīqiyya).”
“Alternatively, it was termed a “dye” by way of mushākala (assimilative phrasing) since it occurs adjacent to an elided expression, namely the Christians’ dyeing of their children in the water of baptism so that their Christianity might be confirmed. This is a yellow water, originally the water with which Jesus (peace be upon him) was washed on the third day after his birth; whenever it is depleted they add water to it, and they hold it to be a purification. It is said to be an Arabized rendering of maʿmūdhīnā. With a dotted dhāl. Meaning purity: water sanctified by what is recited over it from the Gospel, in which pregnant women then bathe.”
“Allah commanded the believers to say to the Christians: Say, we have believed in Allah, and Allah has dyed us with faith. A dye unlike the dye of baptism. {And who is better than Allah in dyeing?}. None is better than the dye of Allah, nor is any its equal, for it is Islam, which delivers from disgrace in this world and the next and bequeaths the good of both. {And we are His}. His alone, and no other’s, unlike your associating others with Him in worship, O company of Jews and Christian.”
Key Understanding: The “dye of Allah” is not an external ritual but the primordial constitution (fiṭra) upon which Allah created humanity. This stands in direct contrast to human-invented rituals like baptism. Shaykh Aṭfayyish’s commentary illuminates that the “dye of Allah” is not an external ritual but an internal purification of the heart from unbelief and disobedience. This presents a profound critique. While Christians debate the mechanics of baptism, the Qur’an directs attention to the spiritual transformation itself.
THE ETYMOLOGY AND ORIGINS OF BAPTISM
III. What is the Etymology of Baptism?
[B-1,Verb,G907, baptizo] “to baptize,” primarily a frequentative form of bapto, “to dip,” was used among the Greeks to signify the dyeing of a garment, or the drawing of water by dipping a vessel into another, etc. Plutarchus uses it of the drawing of wine by dipping the cup into the bowl (Alexis, 67) and Plato, metaphorically, of being overwhelmed with questions (Euthydemus, 277 D).
βάπτω to dip in water Dodson: βάπτω I dip, dye (a) I dip, (b) I dye. Strong’s: βάπτω to whelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid; in the New Testament only in a qualified or special sense, i.e. (literally) to moisten (a part of one’s person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye)
This linguistic connection is significant. The Greek word from which “baptism” derives is fundamentally about dyeing, or immersing something in a liquid to change its color. This connects directly to the Qur’anic concept of ṣib’ghat Allāh (the dye/color of Allah). What the Qur’an presents as a spiritual metaphor, the New Testament makes into a physical ritual, and even its linguistic roots betray this connection to the very concept the Qur’an uses.
IV. The Historical Problem: Baptism’s Absence from the Hebrew Bible
The first place baptism is ever mentioned in the New Testament is as follows:
“In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; Make His paths straight.’ ” Now John himself was clothed in camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Matthew 3:1-6).
There are a number of issues with this text.
It quotes from Isaiah 40:3. It is a quote mine. There is nothing anywhere in Isaiah that talks about the ritual of baptism. This brings us to our most devastating observation.
There is no mention of a baptism ritual anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. None of the Prophets ever preached it or practiced it or participated in it. None.
With this information in mind the following text is highly unlikely:
“Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins”
In fact, this whole issue is unresolved in the New Testament. It leads to a showdown between Jesus and the Jewish scholars with the matter apparently being unresolved.
“They arrived again in Jerusalem, and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders came to him. “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you authority to do this?” Jesus replied, “I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John’s baptism was it from heaven, or of human origin? Tell me!” They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ But if we say, ‘Of human origin’…” (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.) So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.” Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.” (Mark 11:27-33).
You can find the same in Matthew 21:23-32 and Luke 20:1-8.
John’s baptism: Was it from heaven, or of human origin? <<< This is the smoking gun.
If the ritual of baptism was practiced, preached or participated in by any of the Prophets of the Hebrew Bible we would not have this type of confrontation. Now, we are reading what is claimed to be the thoughts of the Jewish leadership.
“They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ But if we say, ‘Of human origin’…” (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.)
This begs the question. If the people really thought that John was a prophet then how can they flock to a person who is introducing a practice that is clearly not in continuity with Judaism?
How do we square these confrontations with the Jewish learned people when Jesus himself says the following:
“Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.” (Matthew 23:1-3)
So then what happens when they go to the teachers of the law and the Pharisees and ask them about baptism?
Matthew 21:23-32 has some additional information that Luke 20:1-8 and Mark 11:27-33 do not have.
Apparently not happy with the stalemate the writer of Matthew has Jesus try to one up the Jewish leadership.
“Then he said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things. “What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ ‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go. Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.” (Matthew 21:28–32)
However, this is nothing remarkable about what Jesus says here at all. It is not a rejoinder to the issue of where John got the authority to baptize.
Summary: No prophet in the Hebrew Bible ever preached, practiced, or participated in baptism. This is devastating to claims of continuity. This is not a minor detail. If baptism were essential for salvation, why would none of the prophets mention it or participate in it?
The Torah contains extensive legislation about purification rituals, sacrifices, and cleansing. Yet nothing resembling Christian baptism. The prophets called for repentance and turning to God, not ritual immersion in water for the forgiveness of sins.
V. Facts About John’s Baptism
Jesus replied:
“I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John’s baptism was it from heaven, or of human origin? Tell me!”
Facts about John’s baptism:
Jesus claims what John is doing has heavenly approval.
John wasn’t baptizing anyone in the name of Jesus.
John wasn’t baptizing anyone in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
John was baptizing people for the forgiveness of sins.
John’s baptizing involved no sacrifice or blood ritual.
Point 4 is explicitly stated in the following:
“And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Mark 1:4)
“He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Luke 3:3)
VI. The Disconnect Between John’s Baptism and Christian Baptism
The question that has to be asked in regard to John’s baptism.
For Christians today the ritual of baptism carries the following significance:
Death and Resurrection.
Going under water: Represents dying with Christ and being buried.
Coming up from water: Signifies rising to a new life, mirroring Jesus’ resurrection.
The baptism of John could not possibly have meant those things to him or his followers as John was not even aware of Jesus (in fact he-John had to inquire about him-Jesus) and Jesus at that point hasn’t even died on a cross. So it is not possible that baptism has that theologically loaded understanding.
THE PROBLEM OF JOHN THE BAPTIST.
VII. The Tension Between Jesus and John the Baptist
What the New Testament text reveal is that there is a tension between Jesus and John the Baptist. In many places the New Testament writers go out of their way to belittle John the Baptist. As if he was a rival to Jesus.
The New Testament has Jesus have a dig at John the Baptist.
“Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” (Matthew 11:11)
“I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” (Luke 7:28)
In fact, this is a dig at all the Old Testament Prophets. That among all born among women there is none greater than John the Baptist. However, even the one who has the status of the ‘least’ in the kingdom of God/heaven is greater than John!
“Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:19)
“John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Luke 3:16)
What do you mean untie his sandals? You are not even worthy to carry them much less untie them!
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Matthew 3:11)
So whether John said he was unworthy to carry Jesus’ sandals or untie the straps of his sandals is beside the point. The point is that Jesus is greater than John the Baptist.
VIII. John’s Uncertainty: The Decisive Problem
The New Testament records a very difficult and strange interaction between prophet Jesus and prophet John.
“For he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.” (Luke 1:15)
“After Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee. When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?” Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.” (Matthew 11:1-5)
There are lots of issues with this:
John is a Prophet. He is filled with the Holy Spirit (even before he is born). Why does the Holy Spirit not know who Jesus is? How can a Prophet from God not recognize another Prophet from God?
Why does Jesus inform John about things he (John) already heard?
It is like this: John was informed Jesus performed a light show. So John wants to know if Jesus is a Prophet of God. So Jesus says, ‘Tell him I performed a light show’. Isn’t John already aware of this?
“When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messiah.”
“Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.”
Basically go back and inform John about things John is already informed about! What?
Why does Jesus give information to John that could also be true of a false messiah?
“For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Matthew 24:24)
How does Jesus feel that this information would be convincing to John?
Jesus is essentially saying to John: “I am the Messiah because I perform miracles.” But Jesus also warns that false messiahs will perform miracles. Therefore, miracles are not a reliable test of prophetic authenticity. John, being a prophet, should have known this. Why would Jesus offer a test that even Jesus himself says is unreliable?
It is very obvious that much to keen eyes that much of the information in the New Testament is convoluted.
John dies without ever knowing or declaring that Jesus is the Messiah.
There is not a single text anywhere in the New Testament that records John the Baptist explicitly uttering a statement of final, settled belief in Jesus before he (John) dies.
His final recorded words or actions regarding Jesus are a question of intense uncertainty from a prison cell, followed shortly by his sudden execution. Source: (Matthew 11:2-3) & (Matthew 14:10)
Since the Holy Spirit never guided John concerning Jesus how will he guide in the future?
“Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.” (Luke 1:11-15)
Question: How can the Holy Spirit be expected to guide into ‘all truth’ in the future if we have demonstrable evidence he hasn’t done so in the past?
Question: How can Muslims fault Christians for not seeing the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) in their scriptures when John the Baptist (a Prophet filled with the Holy Spirit) who saw Jesus, touched Jesus (he baptized him) and witnessed a voice from heaven STILL didn’t know that Jesus was the Messiah?
Are we Muslims being harsh with the Christians in light of this evidence?
According to the New Testament and the witness of John the Baptist, the title ‘Son of God’ had no special meaning that marked out Jesus from others.
Think about this. John the Baptist himself baptized Jesus. John the Baptist hears the voice from heaven saying:
“This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” – Matthew’s version the voice addresses other than Jesus.
“You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” – Mark’s version the voice addresses Jesus.
John the Baptist, a Prophet, filled with the Holy Spirit was sitting in prison and asked about Jesus:
“Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”
This is devastating. This shows us clear as day that this title ‘Son of God’ addressed from heaven itself was not enough to deter John from further inquiry!
This proves that the appellation, ‘Son of God‘ was nothing remarkable to John.
We discussed the idea that the Bible never presents God has having ‘only one son’ here:
IX. John the Baptist Does Not Quote a Single Reference in the Hebrew Bible to Validate Jesus
John the Baptist does not quote a single reference in the Hebrew Bible to validate Jesus. He is uncertain about who Jesus is.
The only reference that Christian apologist can think of is the following:
Then they said to him, “Who are you, that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?” He said: “I am ‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.” (John 1:22-23)
If someone reads the above text, the name “Jesus” is nowhere to be found.
John is quoting Isaiah 40:3, which talks about preparing the way for “the Lord” (Yahweh in the original Hebrew). The connection to Jesus is an inference made by the author of the Gospel and later Christian theology, not a literal statement by John in that verse.
X. Jesus Validates John by Misquoting the Hebrew Bible
Jesus validates John by quoting references in the Hebrew Bible that he (Jesus) says is about John.
What is interesting about the gospels having Jesus testify to John is that this is actually a self-serving agenda. It is well known at this point that John precedes Jesus. So the Gospel writers have Jesus mention John being in the Hebrew scriptures because all the text that Jesus does quote end up quickly brushing John aside to point to Jesus.
“This is the one about whom it is written: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.” (Matthew 11:10)
“This is the one about whom it is written: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.” (Luke 7:27)
These are actually misquotes of Malachi 3:1
“Behold, I am sending My messenger to clear the way before Me, and the Sovereign you seek shall come to the temple suddenly. As for the angel of the covenant that you desire, he is already coming.” (Malachi 3:1) – Source: (https://www.sefaria.org/Malachi.3.1)
“Behold I send My angel, and he will clear a way before Me. And suddenly, the Lord Whom you seek will come to His Temple. And behold! The angel of the covenant, whom you desire, is coming, says the Lord of Hosts.” Source: (https://www.chabad.org/ Translation of Malachi 3:1)
The New Testament misquotations are a shift in pronouns.
When Matthew and Luke quote this verse (Matthew 11:10 and Luke 7:27), they make a significant change: they render the pronouns in the second-person.
“Behold, I send My messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.”
The “your” here refers to Jesus. The New Testament authors are not citing the LXX or MT directly but are adapting the text to apply it to Jesus as the Messiah.
The infamous misattribution of Mark 1:2-3:
Mark’s use of this passage has a unique, and more famous, textual issue. Mark 1:2-3 is a composite quotation, weaving together Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3.
“as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: ‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way,’ ‘the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,'” (Mark 1:2-3).
The problem is that the first quotation is from Malachi, while only the second is from Isaiah. This raises a question: why is the entire quotation attributed to Isaiah?
A Well-Attested Reading: The phrase “in Isaiah the prophet” has the support of the earliest and most important manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and others). This is almost certainly Mark’s original wording.
A Later “Correction”: Some later manuscripts change the wording to “in the prophets” (as seen in the King James Version). This is widely considered a scribal correction to resolve the apparent conflict of attributing a Malachi quote to Isaiah.
“And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come.” (Matthew 11:14)
So here Jesus validates John by claiming he is the return of Elijah and is thought to be a reference to the following text:
“See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes.” (Malachi 4:5).
THE TIMING PROBLEM
XI. John in Prison Before Jesus’s Baptism
Look at the following text.
“John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” And with many other words John exhorted the people and proclaimed the good news to them. But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of his marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the other evil things he had done, Herod added this to them all: He locked John up in prison. When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”” (Luke 3:16–22)
“At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the reports about Jesus, and he said to his attendants, “This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him.” Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, for John had been saying to him: “It is not lawful for you to have her.” Herod wanted to kill John, but he was afraid of the people, because they considered John a prophet. On Herod’s birthday the daughter of Herodias danced for the guests and pleased Herod so much that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. Prompted by her mother, she said, “Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist.” The king was distressed, but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he ordered that her request be granted and had John beheaded in the prison. His head was brought in on a platter and given to the girl, who carried it to her mother. John’s disciples came and took his body and buried it. Then they went and told Jesus.” (Matthew 14:12)
“But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of his marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the other evil things he had done, Herod added this to them all: He locked John up in prison.”
This happens before Jesus is baptized.
This is a problem because it never says that John was released from prison. According to Matthew, John is beheaded in prison. However, Matthew has it that John has already baptized Jesus.
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented. As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.“” (Matthew 3:11-17)
Now, Christian apologists will point to the following text in Luke:
“When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized.”
It uses a passive participle. This specific grammatical structure can describe an action that happened prior.
To which we reply: “Yes, correct this is what the text indicates. However, it can still read that way and appear before Luke 3:19-20.”
Especially if this is written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it is preserved and passed down to us unadulterated.
Notice that Mark mentions John being in prison immediately after the baptism.
“John wore clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. And this was his message: “After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him. After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”” (Mark 1:6-15)
All of the previous texts lead the sincere Christian truth seeker into some very uncomfortable conclusions.
JESUS AND BAPTISM
XII. Jesus Never Baptized Anyone (Or Did He?)
“After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.” (John 3:22)
ἐβάπτιζεν the verb ebaptizen (was baptizing) is imperfect active, meaning it was a continuous, ongoing action physically attributed to Jesus.
“Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John. (although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.) So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.” (John 4:1-3)
Notice the parenthetical clarification: “although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.” This is unique to John’s Gospel.
The text says that it was not Jesus who baptized but his disciples. This raises the curious question: Who baptized Jesus’ disciples? The New Testament does not record a single instance of any of Jesus’ disciples getting baptized. It is simply assumed.
If Jesus gave this command to his disciples we wouldn’t have the following controversy:
“While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.” (Acts 10:44-48)
Why would people object to gentiles being baptized if Jesus instructed his 12 disciples to do exactly that?
If Jesus instructed elders and hierarchy for his church how could people question Peter and what he was doing?
Also note that these people received the Holy Spirit before being baptized.
XIII. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Matthew 3:11)
“John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”” (Luke 3:16)
Jesus never did any such thing. That is why the Christians say this ‘baptism’ is symbolic or spiritual. It refers to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The “baptism of the Holy Spirit” becomes a spiritualized concept that cannot be empirically verified. Insh’Allah we will revisit this later in the article.
XIV. The So-Called Great Commission is a Forgery and a Contradiction
Note that in Mark 16:15-16 there is no baptismal formula given.
“And he said unto them, Go you into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:15-16)
Notice the baptism formula given.
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 28:19)
How are the unbaptized going to go and baptize others?
A missed opportunity: What the New Testament should have done is had Jesus rise from the dead and then in his glorified body baptize all his disciples and baptize them with fire.
Most critical scholars acknowledge that Mark 16:9-20 is not original to the Gospel of Mark. It is absent from the earliest and most important manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus). The fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that it was absent from most Greek manuscripts. This is widely considered a later addition to resolve the abrupt ending at Mark 16:8 with ‘for they were afraid.'”
“Other ancient authorities omit verses 9–20. Some ancient authorities conclude Mark instead with the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.”
“This passage is regarded as inspired and canonical scripture even if not written by Mark. As it is missing from some important manuscripts, it is possible that Mark did not write it. On the other hand, he would hardly have left his Gospel unfinished at verse 8. Many think that the original ending was lost at a very early date and that this ending was composed at the end of the apostolic period to take its place.”
1. The ancient authorities had no problem with Jesus sending out his disciples with no mention of baptism.
2. The Church is the authority. Even if Mark did not write it. The Church has already read it as authoritative.
3. The Church admits that the original ending may have been lost, and this ending was composed. It does not say by whom.
BAPTISM IN EARLY CHRISTIAN PRACTICE
XV. The Evidence from Acts: Contradictions and Developments
“Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.” (Acts 18:24-26)
Look at what Paul does when Apollos is away.
“While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all.” (Acts 19:1-7)
The above text is striking.
These people who were baptized by John apparently never heard that there is a Holy Spirit. You have to wonder what type of teaching they actually received.
Also note that the above text says they received the Holy Spirit after being baptized. This is contrasted with (Acts 10:44-48) where they received the Holy Spirit before being baptized.
Here this text blatantly shows that John’s baptism is inadequate. Paul had them all baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus!
THE MANDAEAN CONNECTION
XVII. Enter the Mandeans: The Other Religion That Practices Baptism
“Indeed, those who have believed (amanu) and those who were Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians and all those who associated (ashraku) with Allah. Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is, over all things, Witness.” (Qur’an 22:17)
In Arabic, the Mandaeans are commonly known as aṣ-Ṣābiʾūn (الصابئون) or colloquially as al-Ṣubba (صُبَّة)
The Mandaean book of John also hints at historical tensions with other religions of the region. Specifically Christianity and Judaism. Parts of the book try to discredit both of these traditions. Mandaeans believe the mother of Jesus was Mandaean and became pregnant by witchcraft or some other source other than her husband. The book portrays her son Jesus as a deceiver who abandons his Mandaean heritage.
Ruha, the mother of darkness is sometimes called the holy spirit, a possible dig against the Christian holy spirit. The book of John (Draša d-Yaḥyā) also refers to the Jewish god as Adonai, called ‘Adunay’ in Mandaean. It characterizes him as an evil figure as well as his book, the Torah as a book of falsehoods.
In the Mandaean book of John when Jesus is baptized the voice/letter from heaven informs John: “You baptize the deceiver” and then the ruha, or the spirit makes an appearance. This spirit is a malevolent figure according to the Mandaeans.
For John the Baptist and for the Mandaeans baptism is not a death and resurrection ritual!
The Mandaean Parallel is Illuminating:
The Mandaeans also practice baptism as a central ritual.
They view Jesus as a deceiver and John the Baptist as their true prophet.
Their rituals and understanding of baptism differ radically from Christian theology.
This demonstrates that baptism was a contested practice in the ancient Near East, not a clear, divinely-mandated ritual unique to Christianity.
XVI. The “Evil Jesus” Problem
There could be some truth to what the Mandaeans say.
The New Testament itself mentions an evil Jesus.
“And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus:” (Acts 13:6)
There is no power in the name Jesus. Jesus was a common name at that time. It could refer to an evil doer. This is why it is quite possible that the New Testament is talking about a Jesus entirely different from what we as Muslims believe.
“For if a person comes and preaches another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or you receive a different spirit, which you had not received, or a different gospel, which you had not accepted, you put up with it splendidly!” (2 Corinthians 11:4)
Just so Christians could be clear that they were not being baptized in the name of evil Jesus there was always a modifier.
Observe!
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:38)
“(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)” (Acts 8:16)
“And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.” (Acts 10:48)
“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:5)
In Acts 19:5, a number of “Western” textual witnesses add Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. translated as: ‘Christ for the forgiveness of sins’.
All of this to prevent Christians from being baptized into generic Jesus or evil Jesus.
Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus.
‘Lord’ and ‘Christ’ are identifiers and modifiers so the people are not confused about which Jesus they are being baptized in. (Good Jesus or Evil Jesus).
THE THEOLOGY OF BAPTISM
XVIII. For the Christians the Meaning Behind Baptism
For the Christians the meaning behind baptism is spelled out for them.
“Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” (Romans 6:3–4)
As we mentioned earlier in this article the baptism of John could not possibly have meant those things to him or his followers as John was not even aware of Jesus (in fact he-John had to inquire about him-Jesus) and Jesus at that point hasn’t even died on a cross. So it is not possible that baptism has that theologically loaded understanding.
With the Mandaeans recognizing Jesus as a deceiver and a disciple who betrayed John the Baptist, then their frequent baptisms also cannot have the theologically loaded understanding that Christians have.
XIX. Baptism by the Holy Spirit and Other Christian Disputes Over Baptism
Recall that in our article earlier we mentioned: The “baptism of the Holy Spirit” becomes a spiritualized concept that cannot be empirically verified.
“Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'” (Acts 2:38)
This is a promise, not a suggestion. It is addressed to everyone. Not just apostles, not just first-century believers. It is unconditional: repent → be baptized → receive the Spirit.
The question is: do we take this promise seriously? If so, then:
Every believer should expect to receive the Holy Spirit in a real, experiential way
The Spirit’s presence should be discernible. Whether through tongues, prophecy, healing, or other manifestations
The historic churches’ lack of these manifestations is not a sign of faithfulness, but a sign of loss or quenching of the Spirit
A Hard Question For the Historic Churches:
If the Holy Spirit is given to every believer at baptism (or confirmation/chrismation), then:
Why do believers in those traditions not consistently experience the Spirit’s power?
Why are the gifts of 1 Corinthians 12 (tongues, prophecy, healing, miracles) not active in their congregations?
Why did the Pentecostal movement have to emerge in the 20th century to recover what the New Testament presents as normal?
The honest answer, from many within those traditions, is:
Cessationism – the belief that the miraculous gifts ceased with the apostles.
Sacramentalism – the belief that the Spirit is given through the ritual itself, regardless of experience.
Loss of expectation – generations of Christians have not been taught to expect the Spirit’s manifest presence.
But the New Testament does not teach cessationism. It does not separate the Spirit from experience. And it does not promise a Spirit whose presence is invisible and undetectable.
XX. Charismatic-Pentecostal-Holy Roller Churches Don’t Get the Full Hot Dog
Even those who argue that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is alive and well are very selective on what aspects of the Holy Spirit are seen and heard.
Examples.
“When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.” (Acts 2:1-4)
Who hears this rushing violent wind from heaven these days? Who witnesses tongues of fire upon the heads of Christians?
XXI. Baptism – Full Water Immersion and Christians Being Overly Ritualistic
How do these Christians deal with people who suffer from ablutophobia?
One Christian mentions that his seminary professor instructed him that if the one being baptized came up out of the water with their head dry, then they would need to be immersed again!
One Christian retells a story about a member in their church who was disabled and could not go under water. So after discussion the elders arranged for this person to be lifted into a hot tub where the baptism was given by pouring water over their head.
What about situations in the desert when you have no water? The person is dying and they want to convert and be baptized?
These practical problems expose the human origin of the ritual.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
XXII. Summary of Findings
1. Baptism Has No Hebrew Bible Foundation
No prophet preached, practiced, or participated in baptism.
The Torah is silent on this ritual.
The Isaiah 40:3 quotation is a “quote mine” about preparation, not baptism.
2. John’s Baptism Was Novel and Unresolved
The Mark 11:27-33 confrontation proves this.
Jewish religious leaders could not determine its source.
Jesus refused to answer the question.
If it had scriptural basis, the leaders would have known.
3. The Timing and Chronology Problems
John was apparently in prison before Jesus’s baptism.
A beheaded John cannot baptize Jesus.
The passive participle in Luke doesn’t resolve the problem.
4. John’s Baptism Could Not Mean What Christians Claim
John baptized before Jesus’s death/resurrection.
No death/resurrection symbolism was possible.
John’s baptism was merely for repentance and forgiveness.
This contradicts Paul’s theology of baptism.
5. Jesus Never Baptized Anyone
John 4:1-3 explicitly says Jesus didn’t baptize.
His disciples baptized, but we never learn who baptized them.
This raises serious questions about the ritual’s importance.
6. Jesus Failed to Baptize with the Holy Spirit
John prophesied this (Matthew 3:11).
It never happened as described.
It becomes a spiritualized, unverifiable concept.
7. The Great Commission Has Textual Problems
Two different versions (Mark and Matthew).
Mark’s version has no baptismal formula.
The Trinitarian formula appears only in Matthew 28:19.
The longer ending of Mark is a later addition.
8. The “Evil Jesus” Problem
Acts mentions Bar-Jesus (a sorcerer).
Paul warns about “another Jesus” (2 Corinthians 11:4).
Christians use modifiers to distinguish (“Lord Jesus,” “Jesus Christ”).
This suggests confusion about which Jesus was being preached.
9. Mandaeans Provide Historical Parallels
They practice baptism but view Jesus as a deceiver.
Their Book of John calls Jesus a “deceiver” at baptism.
This shows baptism was a contested practice.
10. John’s Uncertainty Is the Decisive Argument
John was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth.
He witnessed the heavens open and heard the divine voice.
Yet he still asked: “Are you the one who is to come?”
If John could be uncertain, why trust Christian interpretations?
Muslims are not being harsh with Christians; John’s failure proves the point.
XXIII. The Qur’anic Alternative
The opening verse (Qur’an 22:17) highlights that Allah alone will judge between the various religious communities. This is a reminder that ultimate authority rests with Allah, not human traditions.
“The dye of Allah (ṣib’ghata Allāh)” is a powerful metaphor for the natural constitution (fiṭra) upon which Allah created humanity. This stands in direct contrast to human-invented rituals like baptism.
Shaykh Aṭfayyish’s commentary illuminates: the “dye of Allah” is not an external ritual but an internal purification of the heart from unbelief and disobedience. This presents a profound critique. While Christians debate the mechanics of baptism, the Qur’an directs attention to the spiritual transformation itself.
XXIV. Conclusion: The Crux of the Matter
Our analysis demonstrates that baptism is a ritual without clear biblical foundation, differently understood across Christian and Mandaean traditions, and historically disconnected from the practice of the Hebrew prophets.
The most powerful observation is this: If the Jewish religious leaders, who sat in Moses’ seat and were experts in the Torah, could not determine the source of John’s baptism, how can Christians today be certain of its divine origin?
The most profound observation concerns John the Baptist’s lack of certainty about Jesus:
“Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?” (Matthew 11:2-3)
John who is filled with the Holy Spirit even before birth (Luke 1:15) could be uncertain despite:
Being Jesus’s cousin
Baptizing Jesus
Witnessing the heavens open
Hearing the divine voice declaring Jesus as the Son
Are we Muslims too harsh on Christians?
How can we Muslims be overly critical with Christians for not finding Muhammed (saw) in their scriptures when John himself, who had direct experience of Jesus, remained uncertain as to who Jesus was?
If John the Baptist who was the greatest man born of a woman according to Jesus himself (Matthew 11:11), could have direct contact with Jesus and still not be certain of his identity, then how can we as Muslims think that Christians will recognize Muhammed (saw) in their scriptures?
If the Holy Spirit who was supposed to guide into all truth left John in a state of confusion about Jesus, then:
Why should Christians believe the Holy Spirit will guide them into all truth regarding their own scriptures?
Why should Muslims accept Christian interpretations of ambiguous Old Testament prophecies when the very prophet who baptized Jesus couldn’t figure out who Jesus was?
XXV. Final Appeal
The Qur’an offers a superior alternative. The “dye of Allah” is not an external ritual but the primordial constitution (fiṭra) upon which Allah created humanity. True purification comes from turning to Allah, not from immersion in water, regardless of who performs it or with what formula.
As the Qur’an states:
“Indeed Allah is, over all things, Witness.” (Qur’an 22:17)
Allah alone knows the hearts. It is He who will judge between the communities, not just on the basis of their rituals, but on the basis of their sincerity, intentions, faith and actions.
The second group are the Sunni Muslims (in general). There have always been dissenting voices. In fact, in our article above. Ibn Hazm mentions that there has been no consensus among the Muslims in regard to this issue.
First and foremost try and understand something if you can. When we have established from the Qur’an that there is no text that mentions the coming of Jesus (as). That the consistent exegesis and interpretation of the term Tawaffā which appears in twenty-five passages in the Qur’an, and twice in relation to Christ Jesus (Q 5:117 and Q 3.55) means to die.
Secondly any reading of the Qur’an that even remotely suggest that Jesus (as) went up into heaven body and soul would flatly contradict the following verse.
“or until you have a house of gold, or you ascend into heaven and even then we will not believe in your ascension until you bring down to us a book that we can read.” Say, “Glory be to my Lord! Am I not only a human messenger?” (Qur’an 17:93)
When this is established the obligation is not upon us to deal with the hadith. The obligation is upon those who assert these hadith and how they make sense of them in light of the above information.
Qur’an 5:116–117 decisively closes the case
“And when Allah will say: O Jesus, son of Mary! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah, he will say: Glory be to You, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, You would indeed have known it; You know what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in your mind, surely you are the great Knower of the unseen things. I did not say anything to them except what you commanded me with: That worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness over them as long as I was among them, but when you caused me to die (Arabic: Tawafaytani), you were the watcher to them, and you are witness of all things.”(Qur’an 5:116-117)
There are several things to take from the above passage:
1) This dialogue takes place on the Day of Judgment, where Prophet Jesus (as) suggests that he has no knowledge of what has happened since his demise on Earth and after his ministry ended. “I was a witness to them as long as I was among them.”
2) From the discussion, it is clear that Prophet Jesus only came to Earth once, acting as a witness to his people. If indeed there was a ‘second coming’ before the Day of Judgment, he would have full knowledge of what had happened since his first departure. After all, he abolished the Jizya and forced the Christians and Jews to convert to Islam. This conversation with Allah (swt) would make little to no sense.
3) For the sake of the argument, let us imagine that those hadith that are claimed to have been spoken by the Blessed Prophet (saw) were true for a moment. So now Jesus (as) comes back and everyone becomes a Muslim. The Dajjal is defeated. Jesus (as) gets married. Then Allah (swt) causes Jesus (as) to die.
Then we have Jesus (as) saying after he dies to Allah (swt) “I was a witness to them as long as I was among them, but when you caused me to die, you were the watcher over them, and you are witness of all things.”
A rather bizarre understanding, it seems.
Especially, if we take the following text into consideration: “And there is none from the People of the Scripture but that he will surely believe in Jesus before his death.” (Qur’an 4:159)
A rather bizarre situation the ‘traditional‘ and ‘dominant‘ position leaves us in.”
Jesus says on the Day of Judgment:
“I was a witness to them as long as I was among them, but when You caused me to die (tawaffaytanī), You were the Watcher over them.”
This statement is incompatible with:
A second earthly mission
A global enforcement of Islam
A forty-year reign
If such events occurred, Jesus could not truthfully say this.
The verse only works if:
Jesus lived once
Died once
And never returned
Here are the facts.
The idea of the Messiah coming a second time has produced for the Jews and the fundamentalist Christians the state of Israel for them, while our belief in the return of the Messiah has produced backwardness, injustice, and poverty for us.
This leads to the nullification of action. It means that we cannot change evil, rebel against injustice, or advance unless Messiah or the awaited Mahdi (according to the Sunni & Shi’i) comes to save us from that.
Imagine the rhetoric in the United Kingdom and the United States they fear that Islam will be implemented in those lands! What?! Even when Islam has not been implemented in the lands where Muslims are an overwhelming majority? How will we implement Islam in lands where we are 2 or 3% of the population?!
Now we come to the hadiths, upon which they rely heavily. All these hadiths are ahad (solitary) reports, and we know that ahad hadiths are not used in matters of creed.
Volumes have been written on the hadiths about the return of the Messiah and the awaited Mahdi. By Allah, can a hadith like this occupy Muslims so much that volumes are written about it, while not a single verse, explicitly or implicitly, mentions it? Unfortunately, Muslims busied themselves with this and became passive, abandoning action and every attempt at reform and advancement, waiting for the Messiah to come.
As mentioned these hadith about the return of Jesus (as) are ahad. For us they do not come under the category of mutawatir.
Abu Huraira reported
Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying, “In the last days there will be lying dajjals who will bring you traditions of which neither you nor your fathers have heard, so beware of them. They will neither lead you astray nor seduce you.” Muslim transmitted it.
This above is an interesting hadith from Abu Huraira.
Many of these hadith have as their source Abu Huraira (ra). The hadith from him in regard to the Israʼiliyyat are problematic. Those who transmitted from him would mix up his reports from the Blessed Messenger (saw) with those of his reports from the Israʼiliyyat.
عن بسر بن سعيد ، قال : اتقوا الله ، وتحفظوا من الحديث ; فوالله لقد رأيتنا نجالس أبا هريرة ; فيحدث عن رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم- ويحدثنا عن كعب ثم يقوم ، فأسمع بعض من كان معنا يجعل حديث رسول الله عن كعب ، ويجعل حديث كعب عن رسول الله ،
صلى الله عليه وسلم .
“On the authority of Busr ibn Sa’id , said: Fear God, and be careful with hadith; for by God, I saw us sitting with Abu Hurayrah ; and he would narrate on the authority of the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him) and he would narrate to us on the authority of Ka’b , then he would get up, and I would hear some of those who were with us attributing the hadith of the Messenger of God to Ka’b , and attributing the hadith of Ka’b to the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him).”
In other words people were mixing up what was being narrated from Ka’b (ra) and what was being narrated from the Blessed Messenger (saw)!
This is from Imam al-Dhahabi in his ‘Siyar A’lam al-Nubala’ under the section talking about Abu Huraira.
This is one of many reasons why we in the Ibadi school are very careful when it comes to narrations from Abu Huraira concerning the Israʼiliyyat.
However we take from him in matters of jurisprudence.
What you the reader need to know and understand from the very beginning is that these lone narrator reports are distributed throughout hadith collections. When you often hear from your Shaykh and/or teacher is a narrative about Jesus (as) coming back and the rise of this figure known as the Mahdi. They will than give you a narrative that seems like a sequence of events. They will inform you that this happens and than this will happen followed by this.
The truth is for much of what they say they are piecing together a narrative because the information is scattered and often contradictory.
The other issue that is problematic and causes people to stop thinking about what is being reported is that once the label ‘sahih’ is given to a report people are mistaken to think that the Blessed Messenger (saw) definitely said this. The word ‘sahih’ has been translated into English as ‘authentic’. However, a better translation would be ‘sound’. This means that it has met the rigorous scrutiny of hadith masters; however, there is still the possibility of an error.
Think for a moment about assembly line production in a factory. Have you ever received a product or an item and found that it was faulty or had a defect in it? This is even after rigorous criteria are applied to ensure that the item reach you without defects.
Often times elaborate interpretations are offered to save what apparently looks like conflicting data. So this is up to you the truth seeker to weigh the information and see if the explanations given to you are sensible and rather or not the data adds up.
“When would the Last Hour come? Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (saw) kept quiet for a while. Then looked at a young boy in his presence belonging to the tribe of Azd Shanu’a and he said: If this boy lives he would not grow very old till the Last Hour would come to you. Anas said that this young boy was of our age during those days.”
Interpretations of this hadith say that “the Hour” here means the hour of these people, but the hadith is clear. The question is about the Hour, and the Prophet (saw) does not know it, while Allah Almighty says the Hour will come suddenly and says to the Prophet: “You have no knowledge of it.” This hadith contradicts these verses, telling them that the age of this young boy will not reach senility before the Hour comes. This boy lived and Allah knows best when he died but the Hour did not come.
“People ask you about the Hour. Say, “That knowledge is only with Allah. You never know, perhaps the Hour is near.” (Qur’an 33:64)
“They ask you regarding the Hour, “When will it be?” But it is not for you to tell its time. That knowledge rest with your Lord.” (Qur’an 79:42-44)
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it.” Abu Huraira added “If you wish, you can recite (this verse of the Holy Book): — ‘And there is none Of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e Jesus as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) Before his death. And on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness Against them.” (4.159)
The most famous hadith about breaking the cross killing the swine and abolishing the jizya.
“I swear by Allah that the son of Mary will certainly descend as a just judge and he would definitely break the cross, and kill swine and abolish Jizya and would leave the young she-camel and no one would endeavor to (collect Zakat on it). Spite, mutual hatred and jealousy against one another will certainly disappear and when he summons people to accept wealth, not even one would do so.”
Even though this hadith has been given a grading of ‘sahih’ it is problematic for many reasons.
A) The first type of issue is that this hadith has is that the riwayat-the narration comes down to us through different wordings and some of it has additional or missing information that others do not have.
B) The second issue and more serious issue is that this particular hadith has information that contradicts what Allah (swt) revealed in the Qur’an.
“Spite, mutual hatred and jealousy against one another will certainly disappear.”
“And the Jews say, “The hand of Allah is chained.” Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His hands are extended; He spends however He wills. And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. And We have cast among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. ” (Qur’an 5:64)
“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)
C) The phrase: “Break the Cross” is problematic as it is indefinite. It is not specific. Christians do not have ‘A’ Cross, rather they have crosses. And some Christians -like the Jehovah’s Witness do even hold it to be sacred at all.
D) The phrase: “Kill swine” is problematic as it too is indefinite. It is not specific. Most of the Muslims we speak to on this matter understand that Jesus (as) will kill all the species of Sus scrofa, family Suidae (pigs, swine, hogs, wild boars).
These animals are creations of Allah (swt) and Allah (swt) has simply ordered us not to eat them (unless dire need). What is the reason to kill them?
They cover a wide geographical range and they play a beneficial role in the spreading of seeds in nature. Jesus (as) if it is to be believed that he will literally kill the pigs such adventures would take him to Guam, Samoa Islands, the Caribbean, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, and various diverse geographical regions.
Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said that Isa ibn Maryam encountered a pig on the road. He said to it, “Go in peace.” Somebody asked, “Do you say this to a pig?” Isa said, “I fear lest I accustom my tongue to evil speech.”
*note* that this chain above does not go beyond Malik and thus it is not sure how he obtained this information.
E) The phrase: “abolish Jizya” is problematic as discussed in other articles. This is not a problematic issue for most Sunni Muslims as they do believe in concepts of abrogation.
Narrated Abu Hurayrah:
The Prophet (saw) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (as). He will descent (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.
Look at this part of the hadith: Here is the specific clause from the hadith that addresses this:
“وَيُهْلِكُ اللَّهُ فِي زَمَانِهِ الْمِلَلَ كُلَّهَا إِلاَّ الإِسْلاَمَ” “And Allah will cause all other religions to perish during his time except Islam.”
The Arabic word used here is “الْمِلَلَ” (al-milal), which means “all creeds, faiths, or religious communities.” This is a sweeping, all-encompassing term that explicitly includes Christianity and Judaism alongside every other religion.
Yet what did Allah (swt) says?
“And the Jews say, “The hand of Allah is chained.” Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His hands are extended; He spends however He wills. And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. And We have cast among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. ” (Qur’an 5:64)
“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)
The above hadith says: and abolish jizyah
This goes against the Qur’an.
“There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in exceeding the limits and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” (Qur’an 2:256)
There are three interpretations of ”abolish Jizya”
The first is more believable and less of an interpretation. It is the view that outright people will be asked to become a Muslim and if they refuse they will be killed.
The second one is that it actually means he will enforce the Jizya. Yet that interpretation seems strange considering the very same hadith claims that Judaism and Christianity will cease to exist as faiths.
The last interpretation is that their is such an abundance of wealth that the Jizya need to be enforced. Yet, the amount of wealth has nothing to do with rather or not a Jizya is enforced as per the Qur’an.
In fact, many Muslims have tried a half and half approach to this hadith. What do we mean by this? They offer interpretations of parts of it but others are to be taken literal. You can see that in the video we are posting here:
Listen to the brief exegesis of the hadith about Jesus returning breaking the cross, killing pigs and abolishing the Jizya with Dr. Abdullah bin Hamid Ali in his discussion with Paul Williams of Blogging Theology.
Now you listen to this and come up with your own conclusions.
Prima-Qur’an comments: *Note* the above hadith states: ”He summons people to accept wealth, not even one would do so.”
Please compare this with another hadith:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts).
There is another religion that broke away from Sunni Muslims they too believe in a Prophet after Muhammed (saw). Also, like the Sunni they use often bizarre and fanciful interpretations of the hadith to get themselves out of embarrassing situations. So because this particular religion claims that Jesus (as) has already came back how on earth do we understand “Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it.”
So, sincere apologies for the hundreds of millions of people living in abject poverty in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Ghana, the United States, and other places you will have to settle for: “and he will spread insightful pearls through his teachings and writings, so much so that no one will accept them.”
What slippery evasion! What an absolute abandonment of the text!
Well, one of the things the so called “Khilafa” of this religion does is that he himself pays property taxes to the British government for a house he has there! Can any Muslim imagine Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman or Ali paying property taxes to a Non Muslim polity?
So back to the point. They interpret or abandon the text in the same way that many Sunni Muslims do as well.
“abolish Jizya” itself goes against the idea of Jesus (as) coming back. The very idea of Jesus (as) abolishing the Jizya and giving people the choice of the sword or Islam in and of itself refutes the idea of him coming back and uniting the Jews and Christians upon haqq (truth).
Why? The very presence of Jesus (as) should be enough to convince the Jews and Christians that Jesus (as) is who the Muslims say he is. The fact he abolishes the jizya and gives them the choice of Islam or the sword belies that point.
Think about it like this. Your mother is put in a room with four other women and you are told you need to recognize your mother from a group of women as they come out of a room. Your mother is the 4th woman out of the room and you immediately recognize her. However, would it not be strange that your mother comes to you with a sword and presses the issue? “Accept that I am your mother or die.”
If this is some attempt to fulfil some misguided understanding of the verse: “Every one of the People of the Book will definitely believe in him before his death.” (Qur’an 4:159) it is not necessary for Jesus (as) to come back.
In fact, imposing such an ultimatum (Islam or death) could be done by the so called “Mahdi” or even the Amir of the Muslims. That is if they wanted to go against the Qur’an 2:256 as quoted above.
Everyone will all believe in Islam?
Another Sahih hadith about the end of times that contradict flatly contradict the Qur’an.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
“Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “The Hour will not be established (1) till two big groups fight each other whereupon there will be a great number of casualties on both sides and they will be following one and the same religious doctrine, (2) till about thirty Dajjals (liars) appear, and each one of them will claim that he is Allah’s Messenger (saw), (3) till the religious knowledge is taken away (by the death of Religious scholars) (4) earthquakes will increase in number (5) time will pass quickly, (6) afflictions will appear, (7) Al-Harj, (i.e., killing) will increase, (8) till wealth will be in abundance —- so abundant that a wealthy person will worry lest nobody should accept his Zakat, and whenever he will present it to someone, that person (to whom it will be offered) will say, ‘I am not in need of it, (9) till the people compete with one another in constructing high buildings, (10) till a man when passing by a grave of someone will say, ‘Would that I were in his place (11) and till the sun rises from the West. So when the sun will rise and the people will see it (rising from the West) they will all believe (embrace Islam)but that will be the time when: (As Allah said,) ‘No good will it do to a soul to believe then, if it believed not before, nor earned good (by deeds of righteousness) through its Faith.’ (Qur’an 6.158) And the Hour will be established while two men spreading a garment in front of them but they will not be able to sell it, nor fold it up; and the Hour will be established when a man has milked his she-camel and has taken away the milk but he will not be able to drink it; and the Hour will be established before a man repairing a tank (for his livestock) is able to water (his animals) in it; and the Hour will be established when a person has raised a morsel (of food) to his mouth but will not be able to eat it.”
There will never come a time in the future when the Jews as a whole will enter Islam in mass.
“We have stirred among them hostility and hatred until the Day of Judgment.” (Qur’an 5:64)
” So We caused among them (Christians) 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)
The Jews and Christians remain divided until the day of judgement/resurrection.
What is the point of Jews and Christians embracing Islam if it doesn’t benefit them?
Read the above hadith again.
“but that will be the time when: (As Allah said,) ‘No good will it do to a soul to believe then, if it believed not before, nor earned good (by deeds of righteousness) through its Faith.” (Qur’an 6.158)
“On the Day your Lord’s signs arrive, belief will not benefit those who did not believe earlier or those who did no good through their faith.1 Say, “Keep waiting! We too are waiting.” (Qur’an 6:158)
If everyone embraces Islam where do all the evil wicked people come from after realizing the haqq (truth)?
Also, even if all the people from the Earth did embrace Islam after very obvious signs and a continuation of very obvious signs the return of Jesus narrative leaves us with something very anticlimactic; namely, that huge swaths of Muslims totally apostate from Islam and become the worst of people and the last on the face of the Earth!
“and at that time Allah would send a pleasant wind which would soothe (people) even under their armpits, and would take the life of every Muslim and only the wicked would survive who would commit adultery like donkeys and the Last Hour would come to them.”
The return of Jesus (as) doesn’t even benefit the Ahl Kitab!
As we have already mentioned.
Narrated Abu Hurairah:
That the Prophet (saw) said: “There are three, for which when they appear, a soul will not benefit by its faith, if it did not believe before the Signs: Ad-Dajjal, the Beast, and the rising of the sun from its setting place” – or “from the west.”
So those converts (forced or not) get nada, zip, zilch, nothing. They get absolutely jack!
Imagine, if someone had access to a tome that they possessed that said rather or not you accept what they propose you still perish.
Couldn’t that person who had access to that information reject your proposal on the grounds that they didn’t want to be disingenuous?
Remember that according to the hadith that Jesus (as) comes after the Dajjal has appeared.
Al-nawwas b. Sim’an al-Kilabi said:
The Messenger of Allah (saw) mentioned the Dajjal (Antichrist) saying: If he comes forth while I am among you I shall be the one who will dispute with him on your behalf, but if he comes forth when I am not among you, a man must dispute on his own behalf, and Allah will take my place in looking after every Muslim. Those of you who live up to his time should recite over him the opening verses of Surat al – Kahf, for they are your protection from his trial. We asked: How long will he remain on the earth ? He replied : Forty days, one like a year, one like a month, one like a week, and rest of his days like yours. We asked : Messenger of Allah, will one day’s prayer suffice us in this day which will be like a year ? He replied : No, you must make an estimate of its extent. Then Jesus son of Marry will descend at the white minaret to the east of Damascus. He will then catch him up at the date of Ludd and kill him.
“Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “The Hour will not be established (1) till two big groups fight each other whereupon there will be a great number of casualties on both sides and they will be following one and the same religious doctrine, (2) till about thirty Dajjals (liars) appear, and each one of them will claim that he is Allah’s Messenger (saw), (3) till the religious knowledge is taken away (by the death of Religious scholars) (4) earthquakes will increase in number (5) time will pass quickly, (6) afflictions will appear, (7) Al-Harj, (i.e., killing) will increase, (8) till wealth will be in abundance —- so abundant that a wealthy person will worry lest nobody should accept his Zakat, and whenever he will present it to someone, that person (to whom it will be offered) will say, ‘I am not in need of it, (9) till the people compete with one another in constructing high buildings, (10) till a man when passing by a grave of someone will say, ‘Would that I were in his place (11) and till the sun rises from the West. So when the sun will rise and the people will see it (rising from the West) they will all believe (embrace Islam) but that will be the time when: (As Allah said,) ‘No good will it do to a soul to believe then, if it believed not before, nor earned good (by deeds of righteousness) through its Faith.’ (Qur’an 6.158) And the Hour will be established while two men spreading a garment in front of them but they will not be able to sell it, nor fold it up; and the Hour will be established when a man has milked his she-camel and has taken away the milk but he will not be able to drink it; and the Hour will be established before a man repairing a tank (for his livestock) is able to water (his animals) in it; and the Hour will be established when a person has raised a morsel (of food) to his mouth but will not be able to eat it.”
Who actually leads the people in prayer when Jesus (as) descends? Is it Jesus (as) or someone else?
Jabir b. ‘Abdullah reported:
I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: A section of my people will not cease fighting for the Truth and will prevail till the Day of Resurrection. He said: Jesus son of Mary would then descend and their (Muslims’) commander would invite him to come and lead them in prayer, but he would say: No, some amongst you are commanders over some (amongst you). This is the honour from Allah for this Ummah.
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying:
The Last Hour would not come until the Romans would land at al-A’maq or in Dabiq. An army consisting of the best (soldiers) of the people of the earth at that time will come from Medina (to counteract them). When they will arrange themselves in ranks, the Romans would say: Do not stand between us and those (Muslims) who took prisoners from amongst us. Let us fight with them; and the Muslims would say: Nay, by Allah, we would never get aside from you and from our brethren that you may fight them. They will then fight and a third (part) of the army would run away, whom Allah will never forgive. A third (part of the army) which would be constituted of excellent martyrs in Allah’s eye, would be killed and the third who would never be put to trial would win and they would be conquerors of Constantinople. And as they would be busy in distributing the spoils of war (amongst themselves) after hanging their swords by the olive trees, the Satan would cry: The Dajjal has taken your place among your family. They would then come out, but it would be of no avail. And when they would come to Syria, he would come out while they would be still preparing themselves for battle drawing up the ranks. Certainly, the time of prayer shall come and then Jesus (peace be upon him) son of Mary would descend and would lead them. When the enemy of Allah would see him, it would (disappear) just as the salt dissolves itself in water and if he (Jesus) were not to confront them at all, even then it would dissolve completely, but Allah would kill them by his hand and he would show them their blood on his lance (the lance of Jesus Christ).
Jesus (as) from the children of Israel totally eclipses the Mahdi -the descendant of the Prophet (saw).
Narrated Umm Salamah, Ummul Mu’minin:
The Prophet (saw) said: The Mahdi will be of my family, of the descendants of Fatimah. Abdullah ibn Ja’far said: I heard AbulMalih praising Ali ibn Nufayl and describing his good qualities.
When one compares what Jesus (as) is going to accomplish as compared/contrasted to what a Syed, a descendant of the Prophet (saw) is supposed to accomplish the Mahdi’s resume is a bit thin. Jesus (as) a descendant of Isaac (as) absolutely outshines, outclasses, and outperforms the Mahdi a descendant of Ishmael (as).
Seriously do yourself a favour. Go and read those two handfuls of hadith that mention the Mahdi. Look at those that specifically mention “Mahdi” not allusions, or interpretations but the very word “Mahdi”. Go and look at them. That is right go and take a look. Don’t go and read some lengthy commentaries about things he is suppose to do that are not explicitly stated in the hadith but read the hadith themselves. It is certainly underwhelming.
According Jesus (as). Whom has been alive for 2000+ years descends upon the Earth and kills the Dajjal, he informs people of their ranks in paradise, he rules as a just ruler, he fights the Gog and Magog and performs supplication that sends plagues upon them (gog and magog) and vanquishes them. He converts all the Jews and Christians to Islam, He lives among the Muslims for 40 years and gets married. Mahdi is basically background noise at this point.
Are Jesus (Isa) and this “Mahdi” one and the same or are they two different individuals?
It was narrated from Anas bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
“Adhering to religion will only become harder and worldly affairs will only become more difficult, and people will only become more stingy, and the Hour will only come upon the worst of people, and the only Mahdi (after Muhammed (saw)) is Isa bin Maryam.”
“Even if this hadeeth were saheeh – but it is not saheeh – the meaning would be that there is no one who is perfectly guided (mahdi) or protected from sin and error except Isa ibn Maryam (peace be upon him). This was stated by al-Qurtubi, Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Katheer. ”
Now earlier we mentioned this other religion that broke away from Islam and believes that Jesus (as) has already come and he was born in India. They want their cake and eat it to. Thus, they take a rather straight forward hadith speaking highly of the faith among future Muslims, from among the Persians ,they blatantly ignore the text of the Qur’an, as well as the hadith itself.
Narrated Abu Hurairah:
“We were with the Messenger of Allah (saw) when Surat Al-Jumu’ah was revealed, so he recited it until he reached: ‘And others among them who have not yet joined them (62:3).’ A man said to him: ‘O Messenger of Allah! Who are these people who have not yet joined us?’ But he did not say anything to him.” He said: “Salman Al-Farisi was among us.” He said: “So the Messenger of Allah (saw) placed his hand upon Salman and said: ‘By the One Whose Hand is my soul! If faith were on Pleiades then men among these people would reach it.'”
Even though in that particular text of the Qur’an 62:3 nor in the above hadith do we have the word “Mahdi” or “Messiah” or “Jesus” at all. Yet some people will be desperate to try to prove the unprovable.
Even if the idea of a coming Mahdi was true (which it is not) the hadith declare that the Mahdi will be a descendant of the Blessed Messenger (saw). This is proven through well kept and documented lineages and not through private dreams. Some are absolutely desperate.
Dajjal the biggest fitna? Hardly!
‘Imran bin Hussain reported:
“I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying, “Between time of the creation of Adam and the Resurrection Day, there is nothing greater than the mischief of Dajjal (the Antichrist).”
“No one asked the Messenger of Allah (saw) more about Dajjal than I asked him. He said to me, “He will not harm you.” I said: “O Messenger of Allah, it is reported that he will have with him a mountain of bread and a river full of water.” Thereupon he said, “He (Dajjal) is far too worthless and insignificant near Allah (to let him deceive the believers).“
“The Messenger of Allah (saw) came out to us when we were discussing Dajjal (False Christ) and said: ‘Shall I not tell you of that which I fear more for you than Dajjal?’ We said: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘Hidden polytheism, when a man stands to pray and makes it look good because he sees a man looking at him.’”
“The Messenger of Allah (saw) mentioned Dajjal, one morning, as something despised but also alarming, until we thought that he was in the stand of date-palm trees. When we came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) in the evening, he saw that (fear) in us, and said: ‘What is the matter with you?’ We said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, you mentioned Dajjal this morning, and you spoke of him as something despised but also alarming, until we thought that he was in the stand of date-palm trees.’ He said: ‘There are things that I fear more for you than the Dajjal. If he appears while I am among you, I will contend with him on your behalf, and if he appears when I am not among you, then each man must fend for himself, and Allah will take care of every Muslim on my behalf.”
“The Messenger of Allah (saw) mentioned the Dajjal (Antichrist) saying: If he comes forth while I am among you I shall be the one who will dispute with him on your behalf, but if he comes forth when I am not among you, a man must dispute on his own behalf, and Allah will take my place in looking after every Muslim. Those of you who live up to his time should recite over him the opening verses of Surat al – Kahf, for they are your protection from his trial. We asked: How long will he remain on the earth ? He replied : Forty days, one like a year, one like a month, one like a week, and rest of his days like yours. We asked : Messenger of Allah, will one day’s prayer suffice us in this day which will be like a year ? He replied : No, you must make an estimate of its extent. Then Jesus son of Marry will descend at the white minaret to the east of Damascus. He will then catch him up at the date of Ludd and kill him.”
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying:
“And as they would be busy in distributing the spoils of war (amongst themselves) after hanging their swords by the olive trees, the Satan would cry: The Messiah has taken your place among your family. They would then come out, but it would be of no avail. And when they would come to Syria, he would come out while they would be still preparing themselves for battle drawing up the ranks. Certainly, the time of prayer shall come and then Jesus (peace be upon him) son of Mary would descend and would lead them. When the enemy of Allah would see him, it would (disappear) just as the salt dissolves itself in water and if he (Jesus) were not to confront them at all, even then it would dissolve completely, but Allah would kill them by his hand and he would show them their blood on his lance (the lance of Jesus Christ).”
Prima-Qur’an comments: This hadith is both interesting and strange. It mentions that even if Jesus (as) did not kill the false Messiah even then he would dissolve like salt in water. That Allah (swt) would kill this Dajjal by his lance. Though in brackets above it says (the lance of Jesus Christ)
Jesus (as) confronts the Dajjal and how is Gog and Magog dispatched?
It was narrated that ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud said:
“On the night on which the Messenger of Allah (saw) was taken on the Night Journey (Isra’), he met Ibrahim, Musa and ‘Eisa, and they discussed the Hour. They started with Ibrahim, and asked him about it, but he did not have any knowledge of it. Then they asked Musa, and he did not have any knowledge of it. Then they asked ‘Eisa bin Maryam, and he said: ‘I have been assigned to some tasks before it happens.’ As for as when it will take place, no one knows that except Allah. Then he mentioned Dajjal and said: ‘I will descend and kill him, then the people will return to their own lands and will be confronted with Gog and Magog people, who will: “swoop down from every mound.”[21:96] They will not pass by any water but they will drink it, (and they will not pass) by anything but they will spoil it. They (the people) will beseech Allah, and I will pray to Allah to kill them. The earth will be filled with their stench and (the people) will beseech Allah and I will pray to Allah, then the sky will send down rain that will carry them and throw them in the sea. Then the mountains will turn to dust and the earth will be stretched out like a hide. I have been promised that when that happens, the Hour will come upon the people, like a pregnant woman whose family does not know when she will suddenly give birth.'” (One of the narrators) ‘Awwam said: “Confirmation of that is found in the Book of Allah, where Allah says: “Until, when Gog and Magog people are let loose (from their barrier), and they swoop down from every mound (21:96).”
So while he is doing that, ‘Eisa bin Mariam, peace be upon him, will descend in eastern Damascus at the white minaret, between two Mahrud, with his hands on the wings of two angels. When he lowers his head, drops fall, and when raises it, gems like pearls drop from him.’ He said: ‘His (the Dajjal’s) breath does not reach anyone but he dies, and his breath reaches as far as his sight.‘ He said: ‘So he pursues him(the Dajjal) and he catches up with him at the gate of Ludd where he kills him.’ He said: ‘So he remains there as long as Allah wills.’ He said: ‘Then Allah reveals to him: “Take my slaves to At-Tur, for I have sent down some creatures of Mine which no one shall be able to kill.'” He said: ‘Allah dispatches Ya’juj and Ma’juj, and they are as Allah said: They swoop down from every mount.’ “He said: ‘The first of them pass by the lake of Tiberias, drinking what is in it. Then the last of them pass by it saying: “There was water here at one time.” They travel until they reach a mountain at Bait Al-Maqdis. They will say: “We have killed whoever was in the earth. Come! Let us kill whoever is in the skies.” They will shoot their arrows into the Heavens, so Allah will return their arrows to them red with blood. Eisa bin Mariam and his Companions be surrounded, until the head of a bull on that day would be better to them than a hundred Dinar to one of you today.’ “He (s.a.w) said: “Eisa will beseech Allah, as will his companions.’ He said: ‘So Allah will send An-Naghaf down upon their necks. In the morning they will find that they have all died like the death of a single soul.’ He said: ” ‘Eisa and his companions will come down, and no spot nor hand-span can be found, except that it is filled with their stench, decay and blood. So ‘Eisa will beseech Allah, as will his companions.’ So Allah will send upon them birds like the necks of Bukht(milch)camels.’ They will carry them off and cast them into an abyss.
While they are like that, Allah will send ‘Eisa bin Maryam, who will come down at the white minaret in the east of Damascus, wearing two Mahrud[garment dyed with Wars and then Saffron], resting his hands on the wings of two angels. When he lowers his head, beads of perspiration will fall from it. Every disbeliever who smells the fragrance of his breath will die, and his breath will reach as far as his eye can see. Then he will set out and catch up with him (the Dajjal) at the gate of Ludd, and will kill him. Then the Prophet of Allah ‘Eisa will come to some people whom Allah has protected, and he will wipe their faces and tell them of their status in Paradise. While they are like that, Allah will reveal to him: “O ‘Eisa, I have brought forth some of My slaves whom no one will be able to kill, so take My slaves to Tur in safety.” Then Gog and Magog will emerge and they will, as Allah describes, “swoop down from every mound.”[21:96] The first of them will pass by lake Tiberias and drink from it, then the last of them will pass by it and will say: “There was water here once.” The Prophet of Allah, ‘Eisa and his companions will be besieged there until the head of an ox would be dearer to any one of them than one hundred Dinar are to any one of you today. Then, the Prophet of Allah, ‘Eisa and his companions will supplicate Allah. Then Allah will send a worm in their necks and the next morning they will all die as one. The Prophet of Allah ‘Eisa and his companions will come down and they will not find even the space of a hand span that is free of their stink, stench and blood. They will pray to Allah, and He will send birds with necks like the necks of Bactrian camels, which will pick them up and throw them wherever Allah wills.
Prima-Qur’an comments: It is very clear that this great fitna or trial of this so called “Dajjal” is treated by Jesus (as) as nothing more than an after thought. Sure there are other hadith that have vague mention of him having fire and water and doing this or that. Yet, when all is said and done Jesus (as) just kills him, the end.
The hadith transmitters are confused as to who has the ability to kill people with their breath
“Every disbeliever who smells the fragrance of his breath will die, and his breath will reach as far as his eye can see.” -The Breath of Jesus (as)
“ He said: ‘His (the Dajjal’s) breath does not reach anyone but he dies, and his breath reaches as far as his sight.“-The Breath of the Dajjal
Who/What dispatches Juj (Gog) and Majuj(Magog) and where are they dispatched to?
(Where does the Juj (Gog) and Majuj (Magog) end up?)
“They will pray to Allah, and He will send birds with necks like the necks of Bactrian camels, which will pick them up and throw them wherever Allah wills.”
“So Allah will send upon them birds like the necks of Bukht(milch)camels.’ They will carry them off and cast them into an abyss.”
“The earth will be filled with their stench and (the people) will beseech Allah and I will pray to Allah, then the sky will send down rain that will carry them and throw them in the sea.”
The very strange thing about these reports is that Jesus (as) sets out to kill the Dajjal seemingly of his own strength. Yet, when it comes to Gog (Juj) and Magog (Majuj) Jesus (as) needs to supplicate to Allah (swt) for divine intervention. It is odd given that the Dajjal is a foe we are told slays a man/child and brings him back to life.
Was the Prophet (saw) given a false dream in regards to Jesus (as) and the Dajjal in Mecca?
Narrated `Abdullah:
The Prophet (saw) mentioned the Masih Ad-Dajjal in front of the people saying, Allah is not one-eyed while Masih Ad-Dajjal is blind in the right eye and his eye looks like a bulging out grape. While sleeping near the Ka`ba last night, I saw in my dream a man of brown color the best one can see amongst brown color and his hair was long that it fell between his shoulders. His hair was lank and water was dribbling from his head and he was placing his hands on the shoulders of two men while circumambulating the Ka`ba. I asked, ‘Who is this?’ They replied, ‘This is Jesus, son of Mary.’ Behind him I saw a man who had very curly hair and was blind in the right eye, resembling Ibn Qatan (i.e. an infidel) in appearance. He was placing his hands on the shoulders of a person while performing Tawaf around the Ka`ba. I asked, ‘Who is this? ‘They replied, ‘The Masih, Ad-Dajjal.‘ “
Allah’s Messenger (saw) said. “While I was sleeping, I saw myself (in a dream) performing Tawaf around the Ka`ba. Behold, I saw a reddish-white man with lank hair, and water was dropping from his head. I asked, “Who is this?’ They replied, ‘The son of Mary.’Then I turned my face to see another man with a huge body, red complexion and curly hair and blind in one eye. His eye looked like a protruding out grape. They said (to me), He is Ad-Dajjal.” The Prophet (saw) added, “The man he resembled most is Ibn Qatan, a man from the tribe of Khuza`a. “
The Prophet (saw) said, “Ad-Dajjal will come to Medina and find the angels guarding it. So Allah willing, neither Ad-Dajjal, nor plague will be able to come near it.”
An-Nawwas b. Sam`an reported that Allah’s Messenger (saw) made a mention of the Dajjal one day in the morning.
He (Dajjal) would be a young man with twisted, contracted hair, and a blind eye. I compare him to `Abd-ul-`Uzza b. Qatan. He who amongst you would survive to see him should recite over him the opening verses of Sura Kahf (18). He would appear on the way between Syria and Iraq and would spread mischief right and left.
Does he come from the same place as Mahdi and his armies -aka-Khorasan?
It was narrated that Abu Bakr Siddiq said:
“The Messenger of Allah (saw) told us: ‘Dajjal will emerge in a land in the east called Khorasan, and will be followed by people with faces like hammered shields.'”
Other issues surrounding Gog & Magog (Juj & Majuj)
It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
“Gog and Magog people dig every day until, when they can almost see the rays of the sun, the one in charge of them says: “Go back and we will dig it tomorrow.” Then Allah puts it back, stronger than it was before. (This will continue) until, when their time has come, and Allah wants to send them against the people, they will dig until they can almost see the rays of the sun, then the one who is in charge of them will say: “Go back, and we will dig it tomorrow if Allah wills.’ So they will say: “If Allah wills.” Then they will come back to it and it will be as they left it. So they will dig and will come out to the people, and they will drink all the water. The people will fortify themselves against them in their fortresses. They will shoot their arrows towards the sky and they will come back with blood on them, and they will say: “We have defeated the people of earth and dominated the people of heaven.” Then Allah will send a worm in the napes of their necks and will kill them thereby.'” The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “By the One in Whose Hand is my soul, the beasts of the earth will grow fat on their flesh.”
“Until he reached ˹a pass˺ between two mountains. He found in front of them a people (qawman) who could hardly understand ˹his˺ language.” (Qur’an 18:93)
“They pleaded, “O Ⱬul-Qarnain! Surely Gog and Magog are spreading corruption throughout the land. Should we pay you tribute, provided that you build a wall between us and them?”(Qur’an 18:94)
“He said: “(The power) in which my Lord has established me is better (than tribute): Help me therefore with strength (and labour): I will erect a strong barrier between you and them.” (Qur’an 18:95)
The Qur’an is referencing the Gog and Magog a qawm (people) that could be stopped by a well fortified barrier (at least for a time). There is nothing extra-ordinary or mythical assigned to these Gog and Magog people. Now the hadith comes along and assigns to the Gog and Magog people such ferocious power that the dajjal is little more of an afterthought. Now the majority of Muslims believe that these Gog and Magog people are some where IN the earth. Yet, we do not have any records of people coming out from the Earth and laying seize to anyone in history. Nor, do we have any records of a people being sealed up. Unless it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the saddan (barrier) was erected over a passage that led dwellings IN the earth rather than a saddan (barrier) that stopped/halted passage from one area to the other OVER the earth; than this hadith remains problematic.
One well known Sunni Muslim scholar in the United States went so far as to interpret Gog (Juj) and Magog (Majuj) as zombies. However, after further reflection this is what his position seems to be now.
The Dajjal comes after Muslims conquer constantinople.
“Narrated Mu’adh ibn Jabal:
“The Prophet (saw) said: The flourishing state of Jerusalem will be when Yathrib is in ruins, the ruined state of Yathrib will be when the great war comes, the outbreak of the great war will be at the conquest of Constantinople and the conquest of Constantinople when the Dajjal (Antichrist) comes forth. He (the Prophet) struck his thigh or his shoulder with his hand and said: This is as true as you are here or as you are sitting (meaning Mu’adh ibn Jabal).”
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying:
The Last Hour would not come until the Romans would land at al-A’maq or in Dabiq. An army consisting of the best (soldiers) of the people of the earth at that time will come from Medina (to counteract them). When they will arrange themselves in ranks, the Romans would say: Do not stand between us and those (Muslims) who took prisoners from amongst us. Let us fight with them; and the Muslims would say: Nay, by Allah, we would never get aside from you and from our brethren that you may fight them. They will then fight and a third (part) of the army would run away, whom Allah will never forgive. A third (part of the army) which would be constituted of excellent martyrs in Allah’s eye, would be killed and the third who would never be put to trial would win and they would be conquerors of Constantinople. And as they would be busy in distributing the spoils of war (amongst themselves) after hanging their swords by the olive trees, the Satan would cry: The Dajjal has taken your place among your family. They would then come out, but it would be of no avail. And when they would come to Syria, he would come out while they would be still preparing themselves for battle drawing up the ranks. Certainly, the time of prayer shall come and then Jesus (peace be upon him) son of Mary would descend and would lead them. When the enemy of Allah would see him, it would (disappear) just as the salt dissolves itself in water and if he (Jesus) were not to confront them at all, even then it would dissolve completely, but Allah would kill them by his hand and he would show them their blood on his lance (the lance of Jesus Christ).
Constantinople was conquered in 1453 CE, and we are now in 2026, which is about six centuries later. Why has Jesus (as) not descended, and why has the Dajjal not appeared, six centuries after the conquest of Constantinople?
Those who cling to this hadith after the conquest of Constantinople say: “No, because Constantinople will return to the Christians (Crusaders) and then be conquered again, and then Jesus will come.”
CONCLUSION: “Do not cloak Truth with falsehood nor hide the Truth while you realize it.” (Qur’an 2:42)
Many of you may walk away with the conclusion that those of us in the Ibadi school do not believe any signs of the day of judgement or end of times and nothing can be further from the truth. The Qur’an makes mention of signs. Just because we find problematic the idea of the coming of a Mahdi, or Jesus (as), it does not mean we discount all the information that has been transmitted. Such as people competing to build high buildings, more death and dishonesty. Parents becoming the slaves of their children. Earthquakes and more. Or that we do not make du’a seeking protection any and all types of Dajjals-which in reality means deceivers and liars. The biggest Dajjal for us is one who lies about religious truth.
The idea of Jesus (as) coming back is highly problematic even from the hadith that are given in this article. We can see from hadith that:
“And if he (Jesus) were not to confront them at all, even then it would dissolve completely.” Thus, Jesus(as) is not a necessity to fight some entity known as “Dajjal” We find that Jesus (as) is not even necessary to convert the Jews and Christians to Islam via abolishment of the Jizya. It is something anyone could do (provided they wanted to violate the teachings of the Qur’an.) We find out that it doesn’t even matter if Jesus (as) manages to convert the Jews and Christians as their faith will be for nothing. So you have to ask yourself what really is the reason/purpose for Jesus (as) to come again?
If people say it is to give the Jews and Christians yaqin (certainty) again it is soo problematic from so many angles.
1. As mentioned their faith amounts to nothing anyway as it is already too late.
2. Many Jews and Christians have been convinced of the veracity of Islam and what Allah (swt) informed us about the truth concerning Jesus (as) without Jesus (as) being present. What is deficient about the Qur’an and the Sunnah that Jesus (as) provides?
3. What is so special about that group of Christians/Jews that they get to recognize Jesus (as) -which benefits them nothing in the end as opposed to the Christians/Jews who have lived for the last 2000 plus years?!
So, dear truth seekers all these hadiths, as you have seen, are highly contradictory, and they are ahad narrations that cannot be used in matters of creed. Of course, we should not be discussing this, but when Muslims rely on and become passive, waiting for the return of the Messiah, not moving a finger, not changing evil, not rebelling against injustice, waiting for the Messiah then this is the greatest tragedy.
The return of the Messiah among the Jews and among the fundamentalist Christians produced Israel for them, while our belief in the return of Messiah produced backwardness, injustice, poverty, and ignorance for us. All nations exploit us and our resources, while we remain waiting for the savior the Messiah who will come and save us — and he will never come. And peace be upon you.
In the end Allah (swt) knows the truth about such matters and he will judge between us where in we differ. We ask Allah (swt) to guide us to that which is beloved to Allah (swt). May Allah (swt) empower us to stand with our brothers in Palestine and all suffering Muslims world wide in Somalia, Chad, Sudan, Libya, Rohingya in Myanmar, the Uigurs in China, the increasing hostility towards the believers in India.
We have scholars telling us to just wait for the Messiah. They tell us that Imamate did not stop the conquest of Andalusia. They tell us that Imamate did not stop the Mongol destruction of Baghdad. While all this is true it does not mean that Muslims do not have an obligation to restore the Imamate.
May Allah (swt) grant us all strong eman and resolute determination.
“The Jews and Christians each claim that none will enter Paradise except those of their own faith. These are their desires. Reply, “Produce your proof if what you say is true.” (Qur’an 2:111)
﷽
This above verse encapsulates the Qur’anic approach to interfaith debate, which is not limited to textual proofs, but reasoned proof. This is sensible considering huge swathes of the population were illiterate. Illiteracy does not mean one could not reason or one could not think.
What is striking and deeply ironic is that the ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is not merely a Protestant argument against Islam. It is a veiled attack on traditional Christianity itself. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Christians who adopt this argument are unwittingly fighting on Protestant ground, using Protestant weapons, against their own ecclesial principles.
The “Islamic Dilemma” is a very specific form of argument. It is a logical, text-based trap: if it is assumed that the Qur’an says the Bible is true, and the Bible contraditcts Islam, then Islam is false. However, If the Bible is unreliable and corrupted, then it is assumed that Islam is still false because of the claim that the Qur’an repeatedly affirms the divine authority, inspiration, and preservation of the very same scriptures.
The trap is clever, but it rests on a fatal assumption: that the Qur’an is referring to the Protestant canon, and that it commands the laity to consult it directly. Neither assumption is true.
For the Protestant this is a debate about the accuracy and authority of written texts.
For a Catholic, Orthodox, or Assyrian Christian, this framing is a false start as well as a betrayal of their own tradition. The ‘dilemma’ demands that the Bible be treated the way Protestants imagine Muslims treat the Qur’an: as a direct, self-interpreting, accessible text for the laity. Yet this is a caricature of both traditions.
Muslims have always had direct access to the Qur’an through recitation and prayer. It is memorized, recited, and heard. Yet like Christians before the Reformation, they have never approached it as a text for private interpretation. The Shi’i have their Imams; the Sunni and Ibadi have their scholars and jurists. The Church, not the text, is the pillar of truth for traditional Christians. And the community of scholars, not the individual, is the pillar of interpretation for Muslims. Both traditions are built on communal, mediated authority. Only Protestantism is built on the chaos of the individual.
The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is demonstrablyhistorically fallacious.
It posits that Christians in the 7th century engaged with their scriptures rather than defer to Church authority.
It posits that Muslims in the 7th century accept books that Protestants themselves today do not accept.
It posits that Muslims and Christians engaged in cross referencing Bible canons with the Qur’an.
It posits that people in the 7th century have a high degree of literacy.
It posits that Bible canons were widely availabe to every Christian household.
The Qur’an engages communities and their learned.
“We did not send before you except as men to whom We revealed. Ask the People of the Reminder if you do not know.” (Qur’an 16:43)
(And We sent not (as Our messengers) before thee other than men whom We inspired…) [16:43]. This verse was revealed about the idolaters of Mecca who denied the prophethood of Muhammed, Allah bless him and give him peace. They said: “Allah is too great to have a human being as His messenger; could He not have sent an angel?”
Notice that the people are being told to ask the people. They are not being told to consult the gospel or the torah.
“So “if you are in doubt concerning that which We have revealed unto you, then ask those who are reciting the Book before you. Verily, the truth has come to you from your Lord. So be not of those who doubt (it).” (Qur’an 10:94)
Notice it says ask those who are reciting the book. The one(s) being addressed are not being told to consult the gospel or the torah.
As regard the ‘if’ Arabic grammar has conditionals that are similar to what we find in English.
The zero conditional is used for universal truths or general facts. Example: If water reaches 100°C, it boils.
The second conditional is used for unlikely or hypothetical scenarios. Example: If I won a million dollars, I would travel the world.
So the example used above is the conditional used for universal truths and general facts.
The zero conditional in Arabic (as in English) is not a genuine hypothetical. When the Qur’an says ‘If you are in doubt…’ it is not suggesting that doubt is possible. Rather, it is establishing a universal principle: when in doubt (and the Prophet -peace be upon him, was not), the remedy is to ask the learned. The ‘if’ is rhetorical. To make a point, not to suggest a real possibility.
Examples in the Qur’an:
“Say, “If The Most Merciful had a son, I would certainly have been the first one to worship him.” Exalted is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, Lord of the Throne, above what they describe.”(Qur’an 43:81-82)
The if here is not one of a hypothetical but rather a universal truth. Allah does not have a son.
“Say, “If there had been with Him gods, as they say, then they would have sought to the Owner of the Throne a way.” (Qur’an 17:42)
The if here is not one of a hypothetical but rather a universal truth. There are no other gods.
Also, let us take a look at a key part of the text. “Ask those who are reciting the book.” It doesn’t say ask the Jews or Samaritans. It doesn’t say ask the Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Christian, or the Eastern Orthodox. It says, ‘those who are reciting the book‘. So, if Muhammed (saw) asked ‘those who are reciting the book, he would receive some common themes but also a cacophony of discordant voices.
This confirms the following:
“Do not be like those who became divided and differed after the clear proofs had come to them.” (Qur’an 3:105)
“The Jews and Christians each claim that none will enter Paradise except those of their own faith. These are their desires. Reply, “Produce your proof if what you say is true.” (Qur’an 2:1111)
Notice the text says ‘produce your proof’ it does not say ‘let us consult the torah and the gospel’.
Another example.
“Or have they taken gods besides Him? Say, “Produce your proof. This is the message for those with me and the message of those before me.” But most of them do not know the truth, so they are turning away.” (Qur’an 21:24)
In both examples with the idolaters of mecca, the jews and the christians all are being told to ‘produce their proofs’ what are your arguments.
Why do the rabbis (l-rabaniyuna) and religious scholars (ahbaru) not forbid them from saying what is sinful and devouring what is unlawful? How wretched is what they have been practicing.” (Qur’an 5:63)
This is a clear appeal to authority. The rabbis and scholars could only be faulted if it was known that they had authority over thier people. The verse presupposes that the religious leaders have authority and that they are failing in their duty. This is a direct parallel to the traditional Christian model, where bishops and councils, not laypeople, are the authority.
This is not accidental. The Protestant project has always sought to undermine ecclesiastical authority. By recruiting traditional Christians to fight the ‘Islamic Dilemma,’ Protestants are achieving what centuries of polemics could not: getting Catholics and Orthodox to abandon their own ecclesial principles and adopt the Protestant method of direct textual engagement.
It is bad enough that Protestant Evangelicals are ignorant of the context of 7th century Arabia, as well as the reality of the Pagan Arabs, as well as the Jewish and Christian communities.
What is extremely shocking is that representatives of traditional churches are willingy to drink from the same cup of ignorance.
Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) has never been the position of any traditional church.
Jesus claims that neither he nor the Bible guide you into all truth.
“I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when HE, the Spirit (Pneuma)Πνεῦμα of truth comes HE will guide you into all truth: (HOW?) For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (from God) that shall HE speak: and HE will show you things to come.” (John 16:12-13)
The problem for the Protestant: If the Spirit guides into all truth, then the Scripture can’t be the only infallible authority. This means The Bible alone does not contain all truth. It is only a partial revelation at bests and awaiting the Spirit of Truth and his guidance.
The problem for Catholics/Orthodox: If the Church (tradition) is the vehicle of the Spirit’s guidance, then the Church’s authority is self-referential and circular.
This is circular because:
The Church’s authority depends on the Bible The Bible’s authority depends on the Church Neither can independently validate the other.
So here we are. The real issue is we were promised someone who would SPEAK but in reality all we have are church councils (EO/Catholic) or private interpretations (1001 Protestant denominations). Stalemate.
The problem for the Catholics/Orthodox is that Protestants have unwittingly recruited them into an argument that undermines them and their authority.
The layman did not go directly to the text in the 7th century Arabia.
There are number of reasons historically why this is not the case.
1) Literacy, one cannot assume that the average person could read and write, Arabic, Amharic, Ge’ez, Aramaic, Greek. For example the reference in Qur’an 10:94. This has to obviously be a reference to those who can read. This brings us to the next point.
2) Not only does Qur’an 10:94 have to be a reference to those who can read but those who would have access to a text. So this brings us to the lack of accessibility to the text. Today a Bible can be found in your average hotel. In that time people were not walking around with full canons.
3) It is a Protestant approach to go direct to the scripture and not a Traditional Church perspective. If one was Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox or Assyrian Church of the East, it was not the habit of laypeople to go directly to the text.
Thus, the Qur’anic command to ‘judge by what Allah has revealed’ cannot mean ‘read the Bible for yourself.’ It would have been historically impossible for the vast majority of Christians to comply. The command must mean something else entirely something consistent with both the traditional model of authority and the lived reality on the ground.
The Protestant use of the Islamic Dilemma is actually a full frontal attack on traditional Christianity (be it Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Assyrian Church of the East). Imagine Protestants telling Muslims to go direct to the Torah or the Injeel without the medium of the Holy Spirit or the guidance of the Church!! This is very mischievous and very cunning proposition propagated by the Protestants (esp evangelicals).
There were no Protestant churches nor a Protestant canon in the 7th century.
*Note*
The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church did not split until 1054. Therefore the above graph should have them united as: Orthodox Catholic Church.
The following verse is often used by Protestant Christians.
“Do you believe in some of the book and reject the rest? Is there any reward for those who do so among you other than disgrace in this worldly life and being subjected to the harshest punishment on the Day of Judgment? For Allah is never unaware of what you do.” (Qur’an 2:285)
For the sake of argument let us say that Muslims understand this verse in the way that Protestants do.
What objective basis do the Protestants have for determing what is part of the book and what is not?
What objective basis do the Protestants have for determing what is scripture and what is not?
If a Muslim in the 7th or 8th century were to listen to the children of Israel, in particular the tribes of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh what would the Samaritans advise in regard to following which scriptures?
The Muslim would find that the Samaritans reject all parts of the Bible except what they consider the Torah. That is to say they only accept Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. They reject the rest.
If a Muslim in the 7th or 8th century were to listen to the children of Israel, in particular those who are called Jews, what would be the advise in terms of scripture?
The Muslims would find that the bulk of Jews follow more than the five books that the Samaritans follow. They also follow an oral torah.
If a Muslim in the 7th or 8th century were to embrace Christianity they would join any number of traditional churches that accepted the following books: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees.
The Protestant canon of 66 books did not exist in the 7th century. It was a 16th-century invention. The Qur’an could not possibly be endorsing a canon that did not yet exist. This alone destroys the ‘Islamic Dilemma’.
If a Muslim in the 7th or 8th century were to embrace Christianity they would join any number of traditional churches that differ on the canon of the New Testament as well.
“By the beginning of the 5th century, or slightly earlier, the Syrian Church’s version of the Bible, the Peshitta (‘simple’ translation) was formed. For the New Testament it represented an accommodation of the Syrian canon with that of the Greeks. It contains 22 books – all of the present New Testament except:
II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, Revelation of John.”
“For the eastern part of the Syrian Church this constituted the closing of the canon, for after the Council of Ephesus (431 CE) the East Syrians separated themselves as the Nestorians. There are many surviving manuscripts of the Peshitta, the oldest of which bears the date 442. For much more on Peshitta history, see the article at The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism. It is noteworthy that exactly these 22 books are cited by John Chrystosom (~347-407) and Theodoret(393-466) from the School of Antioch. For a visual summary of these 22 books see the Cross Reference Table.”
Thus, even if we assume the Qur’an is endorsing the Peshitta canon, it would be endorsing a Bible that lacks five books the Protestant considers canonical. Which canon did the Qur’an endorse? The answer: none. The Qur’an does not endorse any canon. It endorses the original revelation, which is now lost or corrupted.
The Protestants imagine that the Qur’an is somehow endorsing a tangible canon.
What tangible canon would that be? Especially seeing that the Christians themselves were/are in dispute over it?
This is the same question that Christians who follow a traditional Church pose to those who espouse ‘anti-Islamianity’. That is why their whole preaching is against Islam, but they don’t have anywhere for Muslims to go after they apostate from Islam. It’s just anti-Islam teaching, but they (those preachers) do not reveal which church they are affiliated with. That is if they are affiliated with one at all.
This is also known as ‘churchless apologetic’.
This is why the ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is promoted primarily by ‘churchless apologists’. Grifters and independent evangelicals with no affiliation to any traditional Church. They have no stake in defending a particular ecclesiastical tradition. They simply want to tear down Islam, with no thought to where the Muslim convert would go. They are a law unto themselves, accountable to no one but their own whims and private interpretations. And this, ironically, is precisely what the traditional Churches have always warned against i.e The chaos of sola scriptura without the anchor of ecclesiastical authority.
Let us reflect on what Pope Benedict XVI said in his ‘What Is Christianity?’
“All of this means that the Christian faith is not a religion of the Book (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 108 and the Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini of 2008). Holy Scripture speaks only in the living community of the Church. There is a double exchange here, a relationship of subordination and superordination. On the one hand, the Church clearly submits to the Word of God, always having to let itself be guided and judged by it, on the other hand, however, Scripture, starting from its whole, can only be adequately interpreted in the living Church. This position, adopted by the whole Church until the 16th century, was rejected in the Reformation with the principle of sola scriptura . Christianity now appears as a religion of the Book.
Source: (Benedetto XVI Che Cos’e il Cristianesimo quasi un testamento spirituale).
Here we have the Pope himself affirming that the Catholic Church does not treat the Bible as a self-interpreting text. The Qur’an says the same thing: ‘Ask the People of the Reminder.’ The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is not just unhistorical it is anti-Catholic, anti-Orthodox, and anti-Assyrian.
Holy Scripture speaks only in the living community of the Church. -Pope Benedict.
Example.
The doctrine of Invincible Ignorance.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that not everyone necessarily needs to confess Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour simply becuase not everyone is able to do so.
“Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)
“But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:8-9)
“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already.” (John 3:18)
These text seem very clear that one needs to confess their faith in Jesus to be saved. However, the Roman Catholic Church via it’s doctrine of ‘Invincible Ignorance’ says not so fast.
The concept of invincible ignorance allows for the salvation of young children, the mentally disabled, and others who never heard the gospel.
St Augustine has a whole chapter title called: Chapter 2 [II.]— Faith in Christ Not Necessary to Salvation, If a Man Without It Can Lead a Righteous Life.
He states:
“Therefore the nature of the human race, generated from the flesh of the one transgressor, if it is self-sufficient for fulfilling the law and for perfecting righteousness, ought to be sure of its reward, that is, of everlasting life, even if in any nation or at any former time faith in the blood of Christ was unknown to it. For God is not so unjust as to defraud righteous persons of the reward of righteousness, because there has not been announced to them the mystery of Christ’s divinity and humanity, which was manifested in the flesh. 1 Timonty 3:16 For how could they believe what they had not heard of; or how could they hear without a preacher? Romans 10:14 For faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say (adds he): Have they not heard? Yea, verily; their sound went out into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. Romans 10:17-18. Before, however, all this had been accomplished, before the actual preaching of the gospel reaches the ends of all the earth — because there are some remote nations still (although it is said they are very few)”
The doctrine of invincible ignorance even allows for pagans who persecuted and killed Christians to enter heaven if the Pope prays for their deliverance. There is no need for the person to confess Christ even if they are able.
John of Damascus said that God freed Trajan from Hell after the prayers of Saint Gregory the Great.
“Further, the Damascene in the same sermon relates that Gregory, while praying for Trajan, heard a voice from heaven saying to him: “I have heard thy voice, and I pardon Trajan; : and of this fact the Damascene adds in the same sermon, “the whole East and West are witnesses. ” Yet it is clear that Trajan was in hell, since “he put many martyrs to a cruel death” [De his qui fide dormierunt]. Therefore the suffrages of the Church avail even for those who are in hell.”
The Roman Catholic Church can appeal to scripture but it is not necessay.
“And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34)
“In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.” (Acts 17:30)
So Catholics argue that God cannot issue commands that people can’t obey.
If the Catholic Church can interpret away the seemingly clear words of Acts 4:12 and Romans 10:9, then on what basis do Protestants claim that the Bible is self-iexplanatory? The very existence of the doctrine of invincible ignorance proves that the Church and not the text is the final authority.
Catholics like Sam Shamoun and Cameron Bertuzzi stand ready to debate Protestants like Anthony Rogers and Samuel Green on Invincible Ignorance.
The Protestant project has always sought to undermine church authority.
In Mainz, Germany, in the mid-1450s, Johann Gutenberg and his partner Johann Fust published more than 150 large-format copies of the Bible in Latin. This is the book known today as the Gutenberg Bible. That was in the 1450s, and there were 150 copies.
Up until that point, imagine all the Christian souls scattered throughout the Earth; they lived and died without once having or holding an individual Bible in their possession. Hopefully, some Christians will be more appreciative of this fact.
For over a millennium, Christians had no personal Bibles. They relied on the Church. They relied upon its liturgy, its priests, its bishops, its councils. The Protestant idea that the Bible is for the laity is a 16th-century invention. The Qur’an, revealed in the 7th century, could not have been commanding Christians to do what was historically impossible.
Books in those times were luxury items reserved exclusively for the ultra-wealthy, ruling elites, and church communities.
Ordinary Christians experienced the scriptures orally. They would gather together at church services to hear a literate priest or bishop read the letters and gospels aloud.
That Christian laity did not rely upon the Bible to receive their guidance. They relied upon their respective church, whether it was the Latin Roman Catholic, Assyrian Church, Oriental or Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church, and not scripture, was the source of guidance and inspiration for the average Christian.
We can clearly see that the Qur’an has never endorsed the entirety of any Biblical canon or text.
The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ has two horns both of which rest on an assumption. The assumption is that the Qur’an claims the Bible is true.
Does the Qur’an claim the Bible is true?
The word Bible has its etymological root in the Greek ta biblia, which means “small books”.
Possibly the closest equivalent would be the following:
“The Messenger believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, and so do the believers. They believe in Allah, His angels, His Books (kutubihi), and His messengers.” (Qur’an 2:285)
This particular verse does not clarify which books are to be believed. Only that Muslims are to believe in ‘His Books’.
As we have demonstrated that historically speaking, Protestants cannot prove that the Qur’an 2:285 is identical to a 66 book canon.
One thing is certain. The Gospel is not included in the text of Qur’an 2:285. Hoever, Jesus is included in Qur’an 2:285.
The Qur’an never describes the Gospel as a book given to Jesus.
“And He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel.” (Qur’an 3:48)
An interesting note on the above. If the Torah was intact there would be no need for Allah to teach the Torah to Jesus.
“And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus , the son of Mary, (ma bayna yadayhi) having authority over the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and having authority over that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.” (Qur’an 5:46)
“So let the people of the Gospel judgeby what Allah has revealed in it. And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are the rebellious.” (Qur’an 5:47)
If the Gospel was in pristine condition the verse would have simply stated:
“And let the Christians judge by the Gospel.”
Yet, it is drawing attention to the ‘People of the Gospel’ (ahlul l’injili) to judge by what Allah has revealed therein.
The people who have the nomenclature ‘People of the Gospel’ are to judge.
Again keep in mind this is not a call for Christian laity to engage directly with their text.
Recall that we have already established two unassailable points. 1. Literacy was not widespread among all people. 2. Even it were not everyone had access to a text.
“Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them(ʿindahum).” (Qur’an 7:157)
If a person possesses a heavily edited or condensed version of a historical document, it is still legally and conversationally “with them” (ʿindahum).
Example.
“And those who disbelieve say, ‘Why was the Qur’an not revealed to him all at once?” (Qur’an 25:32)
This is a reference to the Qur’an but the entirety of the Qur’an was not revealed at this time. Yet the text is still calling it the Qur’an.
The Qur’an debunks the Protestant claim of preservation.
“There are some among them who distort what is in the Book(bil-kitabi) with their tongues to make you think this is from (l-kitabi) the Book but it is not what the (l-kitabi) Book says. They say, “It is from Allah”—but it is not from Allah. And they attribute lies to Allah knowingly.” (Qur’an 3:78)
The Protestants sweep this accusation aside by affirming that the text doesn’t say anything about textual corruption. It is about people who twist the words and meanings of their sacred text. However, as pointed out in a society where illiteracy was common place, the laity did not go directly to the text and many of them did not have the requisite language skills to acces it. This was already quite poisonous.
However, the next text are not so easily swept aside.
“Have you any hope that they will be true to you when a party of them used to listen(yasma’una) to the word of Allah, then used to (yuharrifunahu)change it, after they had understood(‘aqaluhu) it, knowingly.” (Qur’an 2:75)
This verse is quite explicit in the damnation of these people. That they actually would listen to the words of Allah (auditory hearing), they understood it, confirmed it and knowingly changed it during the oral transmission process!
Received the revelation from Allah.
Understood it.
Knowingly distorted it during the oral transmission process.
One would have to be extremely vile to do such a thing.
‘Then woe to those who write the Book (l-kitaba) with their own hands, and then say: “This is from Allah,” to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.’ (Qur’an 2:79)
This is what we find “with them” (ʿindahum).
“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the (תּוֹרַת יְהֹוָהTorat YHWH) law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (Jeremiah 8:8)
Notice the text of Qur’an 2:79 says they make gain by what they wrote.
The following says that Jews can give interest to non-Jews but not to one another.
“Unto a foreigner you may lend interest; but not unto your brother you shall not lend interest, that Jehovah your God may bless you in all that you put your hand on, in the land wherever you go into possess it. When you shall vow a vow unto Jehovah your God, you shall not be slack to pay it: For Jehovah your God will surely require it of you; and it would be sin in you.” (Deuteronomy 23:20-21)
The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ uno verse card.
The Qur’an claims that the Gospel, Zabur and Torah are revelation from Allah. If one claims they have the Gospel, Zabur or Torah and those contents do not claim it is from Allah then it should be rejected.
For example, let us imagine that the Gospel is equivalent to any number of competing New Tesatament canons (35 books, 22 books or 27 books) this in and of itself raises questions how one objectively comes to the correct number of books.
However, is there anywhere where the New Testament claims that it is from God?
Many Christians will point to 2 Timothy 3:16.
Let us examine the text.
“Every writing inspired by God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction which is in righteousness.”
Well, this doesn’t say much. Every writing (graphé)inspired by God is profitable. This begs the question. On what objective basis does the Protestant determine which writings are inspired by God?
Predicative: All scripture (as a category) is inspired
ASV / RSV / NEB
“Every writing inspired by God is also profitable…”
Restrictive: Only inspired scripture is profitable
The Grammatical Issue
The Greek construction πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος (pasa graphē theopneustos) is ambiguous:
Predicative Reading: “All writing is God-breathed” (the adjective describes the entire category)
Restrictive Reading: “Every writing that is God-breathed” (the adjective limits the category)
The Critical Point:
The absence of the verb “is” (ἐστιν – estin) in the Greek makes the translation a matter of interpretation. There is no explicit “is” in the text. The translator must decide whether to supply it as a predicative or a restrictive statement.
By the way, most of your translations will translate graphé as ‘scripture’ to give you the indication that it is somehow sacred.
Look how the various translations render the Greek into English.
The restrictive reading makes the most sense. That is because there is no Christian on Earth that believes that every writing is God -breathed. That would also make the Qur’an God-breathed and we would not be having this conversation.
The problem for the Protestant. (Every Christian must ask this in reality).
If only some writings are God-breathed, then:
Who determines which writings are inspired?
What is the criterion for inspiration?
How do we know which graphē are God-breathed?
This leads to the question of canon.
The Circular Problem:
Protestant Claim: 2 Timothy 3:16 proves that all Scripture is inspired.
Problem: The verse does not tell us which writings are Scripture.
Result: We must have a canon to know which writings are inspired.
But: The canon is determined different competing apostolic Churches, not by the text itself.
This is circular because:
The Church’s authority depends on the Bible. The Bible’s authority depends on the Church. Neither can independently validate the other.
So here we are. In reality all we have are church councils (EO/Catholic) or private interpretations (1001 Protestant denominations). Stalemate.
The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ undermines Jesus teachings and becomes a Satanic Dilemma for themselves.
“If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. “How then will his kingdom stand?” (Matthew 12:26)
The context of Matthew 12:26 is Jesus’ response to the Pharisees, who accused him of driving out demons by the power of Beelzebul (Satan). Jesus used logical reasoning to expose the flaw in their claim, explaining that a divided kingdom or household cannot survive. Therefore, it would make no sense for Satan to cast out his own demons, as that would mean working against himself and destroying his own kingdom
The Protestant claim is that the spiritual force behind the Qur’an is none other than Satan.
If Satan inspired the Qur’an, why would he command people to follow the Torah and Gospel?
The Bible says Satan is the father of lies.
“You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44).
If he is the father of lies, he would not inspire a book that tells people to follow the truth (the Bible).
Therefore, the Qur’an cannot be from Satan. It must be from God.
The Christian cannot escape this without admitting that the Qur’an is either:
A) From God (which they deny), or
B) A bizarre, self-defeating satanic book that commands people to follow the very scripture that would lead them to Jesus and save them from Satan. This ultimately debunks Jesus logic given in Matthew 12:26.
C) The Christian must admit that the Qur’an does not confirm the totality of what Christians call the Gospel and what Jews call the Torah. This would mean the Qur’an’s confirmation is selective, conditional, and discriminatory. But this undermines the entire foundation of the ‘Islamic Dilemma’.
The Christian cannot say the Qur’an is entirely false (because it commands people to follow the Bible) and cannot say it’s entirely true (because that would mean accepting Islam). The only logical exits are:
Admit the Qur’an is from God (conversion).
Admit that Satan sometimes commands people to follow God (which is theologically absurd)
Admit the Muslim position is true (the Qur’an does not confirm the totality of what Christians call the Gospel and what the Jews call the Torah -which undermines both faiths.) < This would be what Satan would do. Satan would obfuscate a matter not lead people to God.
This is why traditional Christian Churches such as the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Assyrian Church of the East did not use these type of arguments against Islam.
They recognized the logical fallacy of such arguments. However, many catechumens of both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition have fallen for the Protestant approach. They have brought shame and disrepute towards their respective churches.
The ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is a Protestant invention. It is historically ignorant, theologically shallow, and logically self-defeating. It betrays the very traditions it purports to defend. Traditional Christians who embrace it are unwittingly abandoning their own principles and fighting a battle on Protestant ground. The Qur’an invites a different approach: reasoned argument, consultation with the learned, and a return to the original revelation that it confirms and clarifies. The question is not ‘Which text is true?’ but ‘Where is the truth?’ And the Qur’an answers: it is in the Reminder that Allah has sent down. It is clear, preserved, and accessible to all who seek it.
To fully appreciate the Qur’anic message, we must imagine the religious landscape of the 7th century. it was a world of competing factions, warring sects, and conflicting claims to truth.
Consider the scene. The Jews and Samaritans were at odds with one another. The Samaritans accepted only the Pentateuch, rejected the Prophets and Writings, and worshipped on Mount Gerizim. The Jews accepted the entire Tanakh and worshipped in Jerusalem. Both claimed to be the true heirs of Abraham. Both anathematized the other neither accepting Jesus as the Messiah, each claiming to possess the true Torah. The Samaritans had their own version of the Torah, their own Mount Gerizim, their own priesthood. The Jews had their own Torah, their own Temple Mount, their own rabbinic traditions.
Then you had the Christians. But which Christians? The Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Christians, the Eastern Orthodox all arguing with one another over the nature of Christ, the number of his natures, the proper way to calculate Easter, the veneration of icons. Each claimed to be the true Church. Each claimed to have the true faith. Each anathematized the others.
These Christians practiced baptism as a death and resurrection ritual.
Then you had the Sabeans, also known as the Mandeans. They accepted John the Baptist but not Jesus. They practiced ritual baptism, but it carried a different meaning than what the Christians claimed. They had their own scriptures, their own prophets, their own traditions. They were a living witness to the fact that baptism was not the exclusive property of Christianity.
And among all these groups, there was no unified voice. The Pope in Rome claimed authority over the West. The Patriarch of Constantinople claimed authority over the East. The Patriarch of Alexandria claimed authority over Egypt and Ethiopia. The Patriarch of Antioch claimed authority over Syria and beyond. Each claimed to be the successor of Peter, the guardian of the true faith.
There was no single Bible. There were multiple canons: the 27-book canon of the West, the 22-book canon of the Syrian Church, the longer canons of the Ethiopian and Coptic Churches. There were multiple languages: Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Ge’ez, Armenian. There were multiple traditions: the Latin Rite, the Byzantine Rite, the Syriac Rite, the Alexandrian Rite.
Into this chaos came Muhammed, peace be upon him, with a single, powerful, unifying voice. He did not claim to bring a new religion. He came to restore the ancient faith of Abraham. The faith that all the prophets had taught. He did not speak from his own authority. He recited what was revealed to him by Allah, through the Angel Gabriel. He did not claim to be a new pope or patriarch. He claimed to be the final Messenger, confirming what was true in the previous revelations and correcting what had been corrupted.
The message was simple, clear, and cohesive:
There is no god but Allah, and Muhammed (saw) is His Messenger.
Allah is One. Not three, not incarnate.
All the prophets from Adam to Jesus (upon them be peace) taught the same message: submission to the One God.
The Qur’an is the final, preserved, and clarifying revelation.
Judgment is coming. Believe and do good. Or reject it and face the consequences.
For a truth-seeker in the 7th century, the choice was clear. On one side, a cacophony of competing sects, conflicting canons, and anathematizing councils. On the other side, a single, powerful, unifying voice calling all people to submit to the One God. Which message was more cohesive? Which message was more compelling? Which message would you follow?
Allah/God addresses this very scene:
‘So He has made the religion straight and simple. And do not be divided over it.’ (Qur’an 42:13)
‘And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided.’ (Qur’an 3:103)
‘And those who have been given the Book did not differ except after knowledge had come to them—out of jealousy among themselves.’ (Qur’an 42:14)
The Qur’anic message of unity was not just theological it was a lived reality. It offered clarity in a world of confusion. It offered authority in a world of division. It offered access to revelation in a world where the layperson was excluded from the text. And it offered a single, unified community in a world of warring sects.
“O humanity! What has emboldened you against your Lord, the Most Generous?” (Qur’an 82:6)
May Allah guide the sincere Christians who are longing for the truth. Those who have a hunger in their heart for guidance.
“Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet, the unlettered, whom they find mentioned in the Law and the Gospel.” (Qur’an 7:157)
﷽
Introduction: Methodology and Metonymy
Note that the above text does not indicate that a name would be found in the Law or the Gospel. It is simply descriptions of this Prophet.
However if we were to entertain the possibility of the name of the Blessed Prophet (saw) being mentioned anywhere what would the methodology look like?
What is the methodology used to show that the Blessed Prophets Jesus & Muhammed is mentioned in the Old Testament?
For our Christian brothers and sisters to be consistent, we would like to bring their attention to the following text:
He said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and in the prophets and in the psalms must be fulfilled.”(Luke 24:44)
Note: Jesus talks about events written about him in the law of Moses; however, when we look at the Torah, we do not find the name of Jesus anywhere.
There can only be one of two conclusions from this.
Jesus was not telling the truth.
When Jesus says, ‘written about him ‘. He is speaking about metonymy.
The Christians conclude that point 2 is the correct understanding. Though Jesus is not mentioned by name at all in the Law of Moses; Christians would point out that the scriptures speak of him, nonetheless. This is a matter of interpretation, not a matter of explicit textual evidence.
In both the Qur’an and the ‘Gospel according to Luke’ a literary device known as metonymy is used.
What is metonymy?
“Metonymy has traditionally been defined as merely a figure of speech where the name of one entity is substituted for that of another entity that is contiguous to it (Peters, 2003; Wendland, 2003). Thus, according to the traditional rhetorical view, metonymy is only referential, and it involves substitution provided that the substituted entities are contiguous. Thus, according to cognitive linguists, metonymy is not merely a figure of speech; it is also a way of thinking and conceptualizing. Therefore, any definition of metonymy should not talk about words or names of things; rather, it should be about concepts or entities.”
Source: (Translation of Metonymy in the Holy Qur’an: A Comparative, Analytical Study) -Reem Salem Al-Salem
This methodology used by the Christians should be kept in mind as we continue our discussion on “Muhammed and Jesus mentioned in the Old Testament.”
We simply ask that consistent methodologies be used.
The New Testament makes the following claim about the Tanach/Old Testament concerning Jesus.
“That he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” (1 Corinthians 15:4) Jews have always been puzzled by this Christian claim as there simply are no Scriptures (here meaning the Tanach) about a Messiah who will rise from the dead.
We have seen well meaning Christians offer the following:
Yet when brought under close examination by both Muslims and Jews none of those text say anything at all that the author of Corinthians 15:4 is claiming.
Third the New Testament back projects supposed prophecies about Jesus that are nothing more than quote mining text. There is nothing amazing in the text to warrant awe to begin with. Worst still the text has to be taken out of context to even remotely, possibly, apply it to Jesus!
Case in point.
“And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” (Matthew 2:15)
First off what is even remarkable about this? Really? However, what is truly embarrassing is the source this is ripped out of context from.
“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)
This text in no way shape or form is a reference to Jesus. Who ever thought it was a good idea to rip the text of Hosea 11:1 and ignore the context and some how make this some amazing prophecy should fear Allah! If we were take this into context we would have to believe that the more Allah (swt) called to to his son (Jesus) -instead of (Israel) the more they(Jesus) went away from him (Allah). They (Jesus) sacrificed to Baals and they (Jesus) burned incense to images. This demonstrates a complete disregard for the context of the verse, which is a serious interpretive error.
So the fact that Christians can do this and be amazed about these prophecies in the Tanach when there are more tenable and reasonable prophecies about Muhammed (saw)then it really shows you the depths of some people’s spiritual blindness.
“Indeed, it is not the eyes that are blind, but it is the hearts in the chests that grow blind.” (Qur’an 22:46)
The Metonymy has to make sense. In the case of Matthew 2:15 and the citation of Hosea 11:1-2 it does not work.
Using the methodology of Matthew We can establish a prophecy concerning Muhammed (saw) in the Old Testament.
“Then the book will be given to the one who is illiterate , saying, “Please read this.” And he will say, “I cannot read .” The Lord says: “These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is based on merely human rules they have been taught.” (Isaiah 29:12-13)
Anyone who has studied Islam knows that this is a prophecy concerning the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) in the cave of hira when the angel Gabriel came to him.
Contextomy: How New Testament writers quote the Old Testament for prophecies.
To show the reader that it is not very difficult to take passages out of context in the “Old Testament” and make them apply to Jesus, we decided to see if we were any good at it. None of these are prophecies that Christians currently accept. However, we quote mined the Tanach and found things that could be applicable to Jesus. This is known as contextomy. You the reader be the judge.
“And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man, thus fulfilling what was WRITTEN of him.” (Luke 2:52)
Well, we would then have a {footnote} that would say (Proverbs 3:4). You, the Christian wanting to see the amazing ‘prophecy’ fulfillment’ would turn to find.
“And you will find favor and understanding in the sight of God and man.” (Proverbs 3:4)
So that is fulfilled in Jesus. If not, why not?
“And they all forsook him and fled, thus fulfilling what was WRITTEN of him.” (Mark 14:50)
We would then have a {footnote} that would say (Isaiah 53:3). You, the Christian wanting to see the amazing ‘prophecy’ fulfilled, would turn to find:
“He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” (Isaiah 53:3)
So that was fulfilled when the disciples all left Jesus. If not, why not?
“Jesus wept, thus fulfilling what the scripture said concerning him.” (John 11:35)
We would then have a {footnote} giving (Psalms 69:3). You, the Christian wanting to see this amazing ‘prophecy’ fulfilled, would then find:
” I am weary with my crying; my throat is parched. My eyes grow dim with waiting for my God.” (Psalms 69:3)
So this was fulfilled when Jesus wept. If not. why not?
If Christians object that these examples are ‘taken out of context,’ then they must apply the same standard to their own proof-texts. Context matters, unless it is being used to support a theological agenda.
Christians see Jesus in Psalm 22 but not Psalm 51.
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from my cries of anguish? My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, but I find no rest.” (Psalm 22:1-2)
So the Christians will argue with the Jews that Psalm 22 is about Jesus.
However, Christians will not say the same about Psalm 51.
“Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions. Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin.” (Psalm 51:1-2)
The name of Jesus is neither text. The presupposition of the one doing the interpretation.
For example the Jews do not accept the Christian interpretation of (Psalm 22) as a reference to Jesus.
Jews are often exhausted by Christian attempts to find references or prophecies concerning Jesus in the Tanach. Likewise, this frustration is given to Muslims by Christians who feel that there are no references to Muhammed (saw) in the Tanach.
Are prophets Jesus (as) or Muhammed (saw) mentioned by name in the Tnch?
Jesus name in the Tnch would be Yeshua יֵשׁוּעַ
Yeshua” is the Aramaic form of “Joshua” (Yehoshua).
The name “Yeshua” appears approximately 30 times in the Tanakh, referring to various individuals.
The name means that ‘God is salvation’. Which should be a huge eye opener for any Christian. There would be no Hebrew name that would be equivalent of saying: ‘I am salvation’ for that would be blasphemous.
Second, it is proof beyond doubt for those who have hearts to see and minds to reflect that the name Jesus cannot be the name of God. It was a run of the mill name.
There was a magician named Bar Jesus.
“When they had travelled through the whole island as far as Paphos, they met a magician named Bar-Jesus who was a Jewish false prophet.” (Acts 13:6)
Jesus the son of the father or Jesus called Messiah.
So when the crowd had gathered,Pilate asked them,‘Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?’” (Matthew 27:17)
There was a contemporary of Paul called Jesus-Justus
“And Jesus, who is called Justus, who are of the circumcision; these alone are my co-workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me.” (Colossians 4:11)
Another proof that Jesus cannot be the name of God is the following text:
“Then the Levites, Jeshua, Kadmiel, Bani, Hashabneiah, Sherebiah, Hodiah, Shebaniah, and Pethahiah, said, “Stand up and bless the Lord your God from everlasting to everlasting. Blessed be your glorious name, which is exalted above all blessing and praise. (Nehemiah 9:5)
It is clear that someone with the name Jesus is askingfor blessing in the name of God. -Which is not his name. This Jesus in the Tanach is directing praise away from himself.
Is this name Yeshua יֵשׁוּעַ connected to any prophecies about a future prophet in the Tanach?
The answer is no it is not.
There is however another so called claimed name to be of Jesus (as)
We read: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us“. (Matthew 1:23)
This is used to make a connection to some supposed prophecy of a virgin birth:
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son,and will call him Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14)
Immanuel is also a common Jewish name which means ‘God is with us‘.
Maher-shalal-hash-baz was called Immanuel in the following text:
“It shall pass into Judah and flood it all throughout up to the neck it shall reach; It shall spread its wings the full width of your land, Immanuel!” (Isaiah 8:8)
That this is an example of a failed prophecy plain pure and simple. It’s amazing the lengths that Christian apologists will go through to make this all add up. It is used as a plot device to move the story of Jesus along. No one called him Immanuel at all. Not his own mother, not his disciples. The Christians do not baptize in this name or pray to this name at all.
Now imagine if the text in Isaiah 7:14 said: “The virgin will conceive and give birth a son, and will call him Yeshua .” Now that would be truly something wonderous.
Is the name of Muhammed (saw) in the Bible?
Now obviously, for a Chrisitian or a Jew this debate has huge implications for them.
First and foremost this may come as a shock to many in the Jewish and Christian communities but what you call the “Hebrew alphabet” today is actually the Assyrian (square) script (Ktav Ashuri, כתב אשורי), borrowed from Aramaic, while the Samaritan script, which is largely forgotten outside of Samaritan communities, is actually a direct descendant of the ancient Paleo-Hebrew script used by the Israelites before the Babylonian Exile.
In other words, the Samaritans, who were historically marginalized by mainstream Judaism, preserved the original Hebrew script, while the Jewish community, which considers itself the true heir of Israelite tradition, abandoned it in favor of a foreign-derived script.
The Hebrew Bible does not have a rigid, mathematically perfect rule for the intensive (“majestic”) plural. It is a feature of the language, not a strict law.
The claim that mahamaddim is an adjective is precisely what is being debated. If a Muslim argues it is a proper noun (a name) disguised in a plural form, then the “adjective” rule does not apply.
So let us take a look
Muhammed‘s name in the Tanach would be: Mahamaddim מַחֲּמַדִּ֑ים -someone greatly desired, someone greatly sought and longed for.
Mahamadd-im the im is a plurality of respect for someone of high position and/or status.
Their claim is also that this word is a noun. A noun is a reference to a person, a place or a thing.
“His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.” (Song of Solomon 5:16)
This name is a foreign name in Hebrew. Hebrew (with the exception of liturgy) was a dead language for quite some time until Eliezer Ben-Yehuda with the aid of the Arabic language revitalize it.
Arabic preserved the ancient Semitic root system more faithfully than Hebrew, which was dormant for centuries.
Is this name Mahamaddim מַחֲּמַדִּ֑ים connected to any prophecies about a future prophet in the Tanach?
The answer is yes:
“My beloved is white and ruddy, the chief among (מֵרְבָבָֽה)–merebabah- ten thousand.” (Song of Solomon 5:10)
This individual is connected with the coming of 10,000. He is a conqueror. He has a fiery law (The Qur’an) in his right hand.
Notice that the Orthodox Jewish Bible says:
“His mouth is most sweet; yeah he is machamaddim (altogether desirable [see Shir Hashirim 2:3; Chaggai 2:7 says Moshaich is the Desired of All Nations]). This is dodi (my beloved), and this is my friend ,O banot Yerusahylayim. [T.N. The next chapter is commented on extensively beginning at page vii. This section is one of the most important Scriptures in the Bible because it buttresses Isa 7:14 and its foundational meaning.]”
It connects the Song of Solomon passage with Haggai 2:7
“And I will shake all the nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: And I will fill this house with glory, says the Lord of hosts.”
Now they (Orthodox Jewish Bible) believes that the Desired of all nations is the Moshaich. We have established that it is Muhamaddim.
Conclusion.
The plural form *-im* can function as an intensive plural (majestic plural) to indicate greatness or high status.
This is precisely how the Orthodox Jewish Bible interprets it: “machamaddim (altogether desirable)” but then connects it to the Messiah.
Therefore, even if it is not a proper name in the grammatical sense, it functions as if it were a title for a specific individual—the “Desired One.”
God’s unconditional promise to Abraham.And the conditional covenant with Isaac
“And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: behold I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him A GREAT NATION.” (Genesis 17:20)
How did God keep his promise as stated in Genesis 17:20?
Although some people say that God did indeed bless Ishmael by blessing the Arabs with oil or giving Ishmael’s descendants this or that material good, we must reflect on what it means when God says he will make someone A GREAT NATION.
The Prophet Job comes to mind when we think of this because what was the greatest gift God gave to Job was unwavering faith in him. It was not the double portion of things lost but the confidence of knowing that one can serve God even in the face of great adversity.
A GREAT NATION by God’s definition does not necessitate material wealth and benefit.
“And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?” (Mark 8:36)
Is Ishmael an Illegitimate son?
Sometimes our Jewish and Christian brethren will try and object by claiming Ishmael was illegitimate, although this is not the case.
“And Sarah, Abram’s wife took Hagar, her maid, the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan and gave her to her husband to be his WIFE, (not concubine or mistress!) and he went unto Hagar, and she conceived; And she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.” (Genesis 16:3-4)
“I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (Genesis 12:3)
We as Muslims in our five daily prayers during the sitting (julus) position on the 2nd rakat or the 4th rakat recite the following:
“Say: ‘O Allah, exalt the mention of Muhammed and the people of Muhammed as you exalted the mention of Ibrahim. And bless Muhammed and the people of Muhammed as You blessed Ibrahim and the people of Ibrahim in all the Worlds.”
Source: (The Reliable Jurisprudence of Prayer (Al -Mu’tamad fi’ Fiqh as-Salah -written by al-Mu’tasim b. Sa’id al-Ma’wali. page 271)
This is very different where the author of the Torah is calling Abraham cursed.
The father of the promise (Abraham) is called cursed for sleeping with his father’s daughter.
For example:
“Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father, though not of my mother, and she became my wife.” (Genesis 20:12)
“Cursed is anyone who sleeps with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother. Then all the people shall say, “Amen!” (Deuteronomy 27:22)
THE CONDITIONAL COVENANT WITH ISAAC
Sometimes our Christian & Jewish friends may even tell us that God established his covenant with Isaac.
It is important to keep in mind two things regarding this. One is that Isaac was never the only son, and the second is that the contract or covenant had stipulations attached to it.
“If these ordinances depart from before me, says the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me forever. Thus, says the Lord; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundation of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all they have done, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 31:36-37)
Now the counter to this is that it means that Israel will never cease to be under a covenant with God. This is not true. The text above is hyperbole. This is proven by the following explicit text. If that covenant was unconditional God would not allow or say the following:
“And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses’ anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount. And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it.” (Exodus 32:19-20)
“That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, you have been rebellious against the Lord and how much more after my death? Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears and call heaven and earth to record against them. For I know that after my death you will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because you will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.”(Deuteronomy 31:25-29)
“The Lord said to Moses, Tell the Israelites: You are a stiff-necked people. Where I go up in your company even for a moment, I would exterminate you, Take off your ornaments, therefore; I will then see what I am to do with you. So, from Mount Horeb onward the Israelites laid aside their ornaments.” (Exodus 33:5-6)
But if you do not obey Me and do not carry out all these commandments, if, instead, you reject My statues, and if your soul abhors My ordinances as to not carry out all My commandments, and so break My covenant, I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that will waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also you will sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies will eat it up.” (Leviticus 26:14-16)
“For the Lord your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; otherwise the anger of the Lord your God will be kindled against you, and He will wipe you off the face of the earth.” (Amos 9:8)
“A remnant (very few) of Israel will return, a remnant (very few) of Jacob will return to the Mighty God.” (Isaiah 10:21)
In fact in the New Testament the following is attributed to Jesus:
“Jesus said unto them, did you never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes? Therefore, I say, The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to A NATION bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: But on whomsoever, it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And when the chief priest and Pharisees had heard this parable, The perceived that he spoke of them.” (Matthew 21:42-45)
The stone in Mecca is called: Hajar Al Aswad-The Black Stone.
Hajar-Is the name of the Mother of Ishmael-Father of the Arabs.
“And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: behold I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him A GREAT NATION.” (Genesis 17:20)
How was the above promise kept in (Genesis 17:20)
Answer:
“Certainly, we have revealed to you a Book which will give you greatness. Do you not then understand?” (Qur’an 21:10)
Alhamdulillah (All praise be to God), the people of the Arabian Peninsula the descendants of Ishmael have received a holy revelation (The Qur’an) commanding them to believe in the one God of Abraham; and has instructed them to live in a righteous and peaceful manner!
So, Muslims believe that God did establish a covenant with Isaac; however, as we can see the children of Israel (all but the remnant) went astray. Now We want to know about the messenger that received this revelation, and is it possible that there is text in the Bible itself that could relate to the advent of such a messenger or be interpreted itself as such?
Tampering of the text of the book of Genesis by idle and jealous hands.
First thing to understand is that that the Jews do not have a monopoly on understanding and interpreting the Tanach. There is another group known as the Samaritans and they have strong charges against the Hebrew Masoretic text. They, the Samaritans also keep the Torah and they have given strong evidence of editorial changes.
Before we proceed further, we need to understand that there are parts of the narrative of the events between Hagar, Sarah, Ishmael, Isaac and Abraham that simply do not add up. In fact if as recommended you saw the article on Genesis chapter 3 that will become abundantly clear.
Isaac was never Abraham’s only son. In fact Ishmael was born before him.
Then He said, “Take now 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 22:2)
Christians and Jews have tried to rescue the text by focusing on: “whom you love” by trying to argue that Isaac was the only son whom Abraham loved. There is nothing from the text to substantiate this. In fact quite the opposite.
“And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before you!” (Genesis 17:18)
This is a clear attempt to write Ishmael out of the picture and the promise that God had given unto him.
Some odd and conflicting text in the book of Genesis:
“Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael.” (Genesis 16:16) “Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.” (Genesis 21:5)
“Early the next morning Abraham got some bread and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. Then, placing the child on her back, he sent her away…” (Genesis 21:14)
The NAB footnote reads:
“Placing the child on her back: a reading based on an emendation of the traditional Hebrew text. In the traditional Hebrew text, Abraham put the bread and waterski on Hagar’s back, while her son apparently walked beside her. In this way the traditional Hebrew text harmonies the data of the Priestly source, in which Ishmael would have been at least fourteen years old when Isaac was born; compare 16:16 with 21:5, cf. 17:25. But in the present Eulogist (?) story, Ishmael is obviously a little boy, not much older than Isaac; cf. vv. 15, 18.”
Contradictions in the narrative: What is the reason that Sarah mistreats Hagar and asked her to be sent into the wilderness?
Now this is all told according to the vantage point of Sarai or so we are told to believe. At one point Sarah says that once Hagar realizes her station and standing has changed that perhaps she becomes haughty. Again, nothing from Hagar shows this, it is the perception of Sarai. Yet we are giving a very different story in another chapter. Rather than a pregnant Hagar showing scorn towards Sarai and that being the reason that Hagar is sent away we have a different narrative. In this narrative the reason for Hajar being sent away is that we now have s much older Ishmael
“When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress. Then Sarai said to Abram, “You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my slave in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the Lord judge between you and me.” (Genesis 16:4-5)
“Then Sarai mistreated Hagar; so she fled from her.” (Genesis 16:6)
“The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, and she said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.” (Genesis 21:9-10)
One other point to add concerning this early narrative is the following text:
“And Abraham said, “My son, God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering.” So they went both of them together.” (Genesis 22:8)
Christians will see an allusion to Jesus in the statement: “God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering.” There are a number of problems with this. The whole purpose of Abraham to offer up his son was to show his submission to God, and not as a sin offering. Secondly Jesus was never a holocaust offering. The Christians do not believe that Jesus was given as burnt offering. Finally, as you will hear ussay over and over we can get all this sorted out once we sort out Genesis chapter 3 and the very incorrect and incoherent theology that Christians have in regard to it.
The greatest prophecy in the Torah. Deuteronomy 18:18
“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18)
Note: The above-mentioned prophet is not mentioned by name.
“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18)
Now it is very clear that neither the name Yeshua (יֵשׁוּעַ) or Mahamad(מַחֲּמַדִּ֑ים) are in the above text.
Christians will give justifications for why this text is a reference to Yehsua (Jesus). We will give justifications for why this text is a reference to Mahamad (Muhammed).
You, the reader, be the judge.
Reasons Why Deuteronomy 18:18 does not refer to Jesus.
#1. If Jesus is God, his words would be his own not put in his mouth.
#2. Moses got married and Jesus did not get married.
#3. Moses had a law -the Torah. Jesus gives no law. Christians teach the law is a curse.
#4. Moses was conceived naturally and Jesus had a miraculous birth.
#5. Moses overcame his enemies and Jesus was handed over to his enemies.
#6. Jesus would not be the literal son of God if he was a prophet like Moses.
#7. Jesus never claimed to be the prophet like unto Moses.
Paul claims that Jesus was not like Moses.
Paul undermines Deuteronomy 18:18 by telling us how Jesus is not like Moses.
“Therefore, holy brothers and sisters, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession; He was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was faithful in all His house.For He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by just so much as the builder of the house has more honor than the house.For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.Now Moses was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken later;but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house—whose house we are, if we hold firmly to our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end.” (Hebrews 3:1-6)
This passage is a carefully constructed argument that establishes Jesus’s superiority over Moses, not his similarity. The structure is deliberate and devastating for the claim that Jesus is “like Moses” in the sense required by Deuteronomy 18:18.
Moses was a servant in the house.
Jesus is a Son over the house.
The builder of the house has more honor than the house itself.
The prophecy does not promise someone “greater than Moses”; it promises someone “like Moses.”
The Gospel of John informs us how Jesus is not like Moses.
“Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘HE GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.’” Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven and gives life to the world.” Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.” Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; the one who comes to Me will not be hungry, and the one who believes in Me will never be thirsty.(John 6:31-35)
John has Jesus explicitly demote Moses: “It was not Moses who gave you the bread.”
John has Jesus elevate himself: “I am the bread of life.”
The contrast is not “similarity” but “replacement”: Moses provided physical manna; Jesus is the true bread. That is not a “like” relationship; it is a “replacement” relationship.
John has Jesus claim a role Moses never claimed: Moses never called himself the bread of life. That claim is categorically different from being a prophet like Moses.
ACCORDING TO PETER IN ACTS 3:19 DEUTERONOMY 18:18 WAS NOT FULFILLED IN JESUS
Christians say that Jesus fulfilled all these prophecies in the ‘Old Testament‘ yet many of them understand that Jesus did not fulfil what was expected of him. Some say that half of the prophecies still await fulfilment. In fact the great prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:18 has YET TO BE FULFILLED according to the book of Acts.
The Acts 3 Argument: Why Deut. 18:18 Cannot Be “Fully” Fulfilled in Jesus
In Acts 3:19 we read:
“Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out. When the time of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began (he must stay until this prophecy is fulfilled) for Moses truly said unto the fathers, a prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren like unto me; Him shall you hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. (That prophet like unto Moses, Deuteronomy 18:18), And all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. You are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, and IN THY SEED SHALL ALL THE KINDRED OF THE EARTH BE BLESSED.”- in reference to (Genesis 21:13)
The ‘time of refreshing’ according to Christians who follow the view of the idea of a Millennial kingdom is that Israel is in a way holding up the train. No repentance =no refreshing…=no 2nd coming of Jesus. In other words Jesus will not return until after repentant Israel acknowledges Him as their Messiah.
This is all ironic considering that many of these Zionist Christians are supportive of Israel and it’s oppression of the Palestinians (both Christian-Muslim). By continuing to support Israel with their hard earned money and putting their allegiance to Israel over their allegiance to their country they ironically continue to bolster Israel and make it haughty and proud. Did the thought ever occur to them that if they abandoned Israel (with money and support) that Israel may find itself broken and therefore have no choice but to to Jesus and repent and accept him as Messiah, which in turn ushers in his reign?
In fact, The New American Bible says the following in its footnote of Acts 3:22:
“A loose citation of DT 18:15 which teaches that the Israelites are to learn the will of Yahweh from only their prophets. At the time of Jesus, some Jews expected a unique prophet to come in fulfilment of this text. Early Christianity applied this tradition and text to Jesus and used them especially in defense of the divergence of Christian teaching from traditional Judaism.”
As we can see according to Deuteronomy 18:18 still awaits fulfilment!
Christians claim Deut. 18:18 (“a prophet like Moses”) is about Jesus.
Peter, in Acts 3:19-24, explicitly quotes Deut. 18:18 and ties it to the “times of refreshing” and the “restitution of all things” events that Peter says are future and will only happen when Jesus returns from heaven.
Therefore, even by Christian admission, the full scope of Deut. 18:18 has not yet been accomplished in Jesus’ first coming.
If the prophecy remains partially unfulfilled, then logically, one of two things must be true:
Option A: Jesus is the prophet, but he failed to complete the mission in his first coming, so he must come back to finish it (the Christian “two-staged” defense).
Option B: Jesus is not the prophet described in Deut. 18:18, because the prophecy describes a single figure who completes the entire mission (law-giving, leadership, conquest) in one lifetime—just like Moses did.
If the prophecy required a “second coming” to be completed, then the prophecy was not fulfilled in Jesus’ lifetime. And if it was not fulfilled in his lifetime, why should we believe he is the final Prophet like Moses, rather than a forerunner to someone else who did complete it?
Why the Christian “Two-Staged” Defense Fails The Logical Test
Moses did not need a “second coming” to complete his mission. Moses completed his prophetic role fully. He delivered the law, led the people, and died.
If Jesus is the “Prophet like Moses,” then according to the pattern, he should complete his entire prophetic mission in his lifetime, just as Moses did. He should not need to “return” to finish what he started.
The fact that Jesus must return to fulfill the judgment and restoration aspects of Deut. 18:18 proves that he does not fit the Mosaic pattern of a prophet who completes his mission in one historical lifetime.
This argument is devastatingly simple: If Jesus is the Prophet like Moses, why does he need a second coming to do what Moses did in one lifetime? The very need for a “second coming” is an admission that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecy the first time.
A very important aspect of the prophecy awaits, ‘that all the kindred of the Earth will be blessed ‘. This is not going to happen if during Jesus ‘2nd coming’, he is going to be judge, jury, and executioner.
According to Christians when Jesus returns there will be condemnation and judgment.
This Jesus is portrayed as blood thirsty warmonger who says things like:
“And these enemies of mine who were unwilling for me to rule over them, bring them here and kill them right in front of me.”-Jesus (Luke 19:27)
“He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.” (Revelation 19:13)
It is very clear that Christians await a second coming of Jesus because they feel he has unfinished business. However, in Islam there is nothing that Jesus needs to do that was not already accomplished by the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw). Unfortunately the vast majority of Muslims believe that Jesus (as) will return and they believe in these estachological views in a way similar to Christians.
However, in our school and as we have shown. Jesus is dead and he will not return.
The way will the kindred of all the earth be blessed by the seed of Abraham is through his line from Ishmael to the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) and the message of Islam.
Conclusion.
Therefore, the very need for a second coming is an admission that Jesus did not fulfill Deuteronomy 18:18 in his first coming. The prophecy remains unfulfilled, and Muhammed who completed his mission in one lifetime fits the description perfectly. Rather then the Earth awaiting Jesus who comes in a robe of blood and a sword in hand the kindred of the Earth continue to be blessed by the guidance and teachings of Islam.
According to the New Testament the Jews in the time of Jesus were awaiting 3 distinct individuals.
If what the New Testament says is true concerning Jewish expectations then it represents a sort of collective belief that they had. Presuambly beliefs they inherited from their learned people. In this collective belief the Messiah, Elijah and ‘That Prophet’ are three distinct individuals.
Answer: No!
We read the following: John 1:19-21, 25
“And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, ‘Who are you?’ And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, ‘I am not the Christ.’ And they asked him, ‘What then? Are you Elijah?’ And he said, ‘I am not.’ ‘Are you the Prophet?’ And he answered, ‘No.’ And they asked him, and said to him, ‘Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?'”
Three questions were asked:
1. I am not the Christ.
2. Are you Elias? And he said I am not.
3. Are you That Prophet? And he answered, “No.”
And they asked him, and said unto him, why baptize then if you be not the Christ, nor Elias, neither That Prophet? “
According to those text the Jews were waiting for three distinct persons.
1) They were looking for the Messiah (Christ)
2) They were looking for Elias
3) They were looking for That Prophet (That prophet, notice, is not a personal name.)
We also know that…
1) The Christ (Messiah) became Jesus.
2) That Elias was later revealed to be John the Baptist.
3) However, we are still looking for That Prophet. Which is distinct from the Christ (Messiah)
The Argument in light of the above information.
The Jewish leaders did not believe “The Prophet” and “The Messiah” were the same person. They were expecting two separate figures. This is confirmed by their question: “Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” They clearly understood these to be three distinct roles/persons.
Why This Strengthens The Case for Muhammed (saw).
Christians claim Jesus is both the Messiah and “The Prophet” like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:18).
However, the Jewish leaders in John’s Gospel, who were experts in the Hebrew Scriptures, they did not equate “The Prophet” with “The Messiah.” They expected two separate figures.
If the original audience of the Hebrew Scriptures understood “The Prophet” of Deuteronomy 18:18 to be a distinct figure from the Messiah, then the Christian claim that Jesus fulfilled both roles is an interpretive innovation, not a straightforward reading of the text.
The Christian Gospels themselves are the source of this information. This is not a Muslim claim about what Jews believed; it is a New Testament claim about what the Jews were expecting. It is for the Christian to reflect if the New Testament represented the Jewish position correctly.
Conclusion: “The Prophet” of Deuteronomy 18:18 remains unfulfilled in Jesus. The Jewish leaders were right to expect a distinct figure, a prophet like Moses who would come and deliver a new law, lead a people, and establish a nation. That prophet was Muhammed.
To us, we believe that if Jew or a Christian with a sincere heart were to read a Seerah (a history of the life of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed) they would see clearly where the Prophet Muhammed (saw) was foretold in the Old Testament.
As concerning Christ Jesus as a Muslim the Qur’an validates our belief in him. If we had only the data of the New Testament to validate our belief that Christ Jesus was foretold in the Old Testament that belief would be completely shattered.
The New Testament records a very difficult and strange interaction between prophet Jesus and prophet John.
“For he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.” (Luke 1:15)
“After Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee. When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?” Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.” (Matthew 11:1-5)
There are lots of issues with this:
John is a Prophet. He is filled with the Holy Spirit (even before he is born). Why does the Holy Spirit not know who Jesus is? How can a Prophet from God not recognizes another Prophet from God?
2. Why does Jesus inform John about things he (John) already heard? It is like this: John was informed Jesus performed a light show. So John wants to know if Jesus is a Prophet of God. So Jesus says, ‘Tell him I preformed a light show’. Isn’t John already aware of this?
“When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messiah.”
“Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.”
Basically go back and inform John about things John is already informed about! What?
3. Why does Jesus give information to John that could also be true of a false messiah?
“For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Matthew 24:24)
How does Jesus feel that this information would be convincing to John?
Jesus is essentially saying to John: “I am the Messiah because I perform miracles.” But Jesus also warns that false messiahs will perform miracles. Therefore, miracles are not a reliable test of prophetic authenticity. John, being a prophet, should have known this. Why would Jesus offer a test that even Jesus himself says is unreliable?
It is very obvious that much to keen eyes that much of the information in the New Testament is convoluted.
Addressing the single biggest objection to Deuteronomy 18:18 being a reference to Muhammed (saw).
The objection is that Muhammed (saw) cannot be a prophet like Moses because the text says: “from among their brothers.” They take that to mean that Muhammed (saw) has to be an Israelite.
How do Torah believing Jews translate the text?
“I will set up a prophet for them from among their brothers like you, and I will put My words into his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him.”
However, notice the deception in some Christian translations.
“I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him.”
The NIV inserts “fellow Israelites” to force an ethnic interpretation that is not present in the Hebrew text. This is a clear example of translational bias, where the translator’s theological presuppositions override the literal meaning of the text.
The fact that “brethren” can mean non-Israelites in other contexts means it could mean non-Israelites in Deuteroromy 18:18.
There is a clear contradistinction between children of Israel and brethren.
The Hebrew phrase miqirbəkha literally means “from your midst” or “from within your proximity.”
In Deuteronomy 17:15, the same phrase is used: “you may indeed set over you a king whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your brethren (miqirbəkha me’akhekha) you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.”
In Deuteronomy 17:15, the “from among your brethren” clearly means ethnic Israel because the verse explicitly excludes a foreigner. But in Deuteronomy 18:18, there is no such exclusion. The text simply says “from among you” without specifying ethnic boundaries. If there was a large Jewish community in Medina at the time of Muhammed (as there historically was), then Muhammed could be said to have come “from among” the people of Israel. Not as an Israelite himself, but from within their midst geographically and socially.
“Brethren” can include non-Israelites.
“Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing with which his father had blessed him, and Esau said in his heart, ‘The days of mourning for my father are approaching; then I will kill my brother Jacob.” (Genesis 27:41)
This establishes that “brother” can refer to a non-Israelite descendant of Abraham (Edomites are not Israelites.
“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herders and mine, for we are (achim) brothers.” (Genesis 13:8)
Lot is Abraham’s nephew, not his brother, and the Moabites and Ammonites (Lot’s descendants) are non-Israelite nations.
Notice the deception with the NIV translation.
“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herders and mine, for we are close relatives.” (Genesis 13:8 NIV)
“Do not detest an Edomite, because he is your brother.” (Deuteronomy 23:7)
This is a direct command to consider an Edomite (a non-Israelite, descendant of Esau) as a brother.
Therefore, when Deuteronomy 18:18 says God will raise up a prophet from “among your brethren,” it cannot automatically mean “an Israelite.” The Torah itself defines “brethren” in a way that includes at least one non-Israelite group (Edomites).
If Edomites are brethren, then Ishmaelites (descendants of Abraham’s firstborn son) are even more obviously brethren.
“Brethren” (aḥim) is not synonymous with “children of Israel”.
“And they shall bring all your brethren (aḥeichem) for an offering unto the Lord out of all the nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the Lord, as the children of Israel (bənei yisra’el) bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord.” (Isaiah 66:20)
The Distinction:
“Your brethren” (aḥeichem) = The group being brought from the nations.
“The children of Israel” (bənei yisra’el) = The group making the offering.
The “brethren” are not the same as “the children of Israel.” They are being brought to the children of Israel. If they were the same group, the text would be redundant: “They shall bring all the children of Israel as the children of Israel bring an offering.” That makes no sense. The distinction is clear: the “brethren” are a separate group from the children of Israel.
Here the difference between Children of Israel and brethren is shown.
“But over your brethren the children of Israel (aḥeihem bənei yisra’el), you shall not rule one over another with rigor.” (Leviticus 25:46)
The Distinction:
“Your brethren” (aḥeihem) = The broader kinship group.
“The children of Israel” (bənei yisra’el) = The specific ethnic/national group.
The text defines “your brethren” more specifically as “the children of Israel” in this context. But notice: it does not say “your brethren are the children of Israel” as a general rule. It says “your brethren the children of Israel” in this specific context. The fact that the phrase needs to be specified shows that “brethren” is not automatically synonymous with “children of Israel.” If it were, the specification would be unnecessary.
Conclusion.
The immediate context does not explicitly define “brethren.” It assumes it.
Even if the context suggests Israelites, the word “brethren” itself is broader. The text does not say “children of Israel.”
If the text meant “children of Israel,” it would have said so. The fact that it chose “brethren” leaves the door open.
So, in light of this, the Deuteronomy 18:18 passage would have said Children of Israel and not Brethren.
This is why the deception with the NIV was so deceptive in it’s translation.
Final thoughts.
We ask the sincere reader: If Christians can see Jesus in passages that do not mention his name and that, when read in context, clearly refer to something else then is it not reasonable for Muslims to see Muhammed (saw) in passages that describe a prophet like Moses? We have shown that Deuteronomy 18:18 does not exclude a non-Israelite prophet, that the New Testament itself records Jewish expectations of a distinct ‘Prophet,’ and that Jesus himself by Christian admission has not yet fulfilled the full scope of the prophecy. The one who completed the Mosaic pattern in a single lifetime was Muhammed (saw).
Christians apply an inconsistent hermeneutic to the Old Testament. They read Jesus into passages where his name does not appear (Psalm 22) while ignoring passages that damage their theology (Psalm 51). They accuse Muslims of reading Muhammed (saw) into the text while doing the same thing themselves. They insert “fellow Israelites” into Deuteronomy 18:18 when the Hebrew says “brethren.” They claim Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of the prophet like Moses while admitting he must return to finish the job.
The Islamic alternative is compelling: Deuteronomy 18:18 describes a prophet like Moses who completes his mission in one lifetime. He brings law, leadership, conquest, and natural death. That prophet is Muhammed. The reader is invited to reflect on this with an open heart.
“And when Jesus, son of Mary, said: O’ children of Israel, surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being AHMAD. But when he came to them with clear arguments, they said: This is clear enchantment.”(Qur’an 61:6)
﷽
This text of the Qur’an has either been a means where Christians have tripped themselves up; or it has been a huge eye opener, one that has led many of them to embracing Islam.
So when dealing with Christians concerning this text you will find those who fall into one of two categories.
A) Those who are insincere and think this text of the Qur’an is some how a problem for Muslims.
B) Those whom are sincerely inquiring into the matter and willing to ponder over the justifications that are given.
The first very obvious point is that this text of the Qur’an no where said that Ahmad is written in any competing number of Christian New Testament canons. The text states: “And when Jesus, son of Mary, said:
Often those Christians antagonistic to Islam read the above text of the Qur’an and think that a Muslim should reply: “Oh yes that is in Matthew chapter so and so verse so and so.”
There is nothing in Qur’an 61:6 that would indicate that the name ‘Ahmad’ would be captured in any of the competing Christian New Testament canons
This would be similar to the text of the New Testament:
“And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: “He shall be called a Nazarene.” (Matthew 2:23)
The reason why Christians have not been able to find that particular prophecy is because the above text said it was: ‘spoken’ by the prophets not necessarily that it was written by the prophets.
Archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom offers a possible perspective.
This Archbishop of the Latin Roman Catholics/Eastern Orthodox Christians offers an interesting perspective.
“We see here the cause why the angel also, putting them at ease for the future, restores them to their home. And not even this simply, but he adds to it a prophecy, That it might be fulfilled, says he, which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.Matthew 2:23.”
“And what manner of prophet said this? Be not curious, nor overbusy. For many of the prophetic writings have been lost; and this one may see from the history of the Chronicles. For being negligent, and continually falling into ungodliness, some they suffered to perish, others they themselves burnt up and cut to pieces. The latter fact Jeremiah relates; Jeremiah 36:23 the former, he who composed the fourth book of Kings, saying, that after a long time the book of Deuteronomy was hardly found, buried somewhere and lost. But if, when there was no barbarian there, they so betrayed their books, much more when the barbarians had overrun them. For as to the fact, that the prophet had foretold it, the apostles themselves in many places call Him a Nazarene.” -Archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom
Thus, if what Archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom says of ‘The Nazarene’ is true than it is likewise that this could be the case for ‘Ahmad’. Namely:
“For many of the prophetic writings have been lost; and this one may see from the history of the Chronicles. For being negligent, and continually falling into ungodliness, some they suffered to perish, others they themselves burnt up and cut to pieces.”
This argument merely demonstrates that the absence of “Ahmad” from the New Testament does not disprove the Qur’anic claim.
Did Jesus ever write anything?
They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. (John 8:6-8)
The assumption is that Jesus (as) wrote what he spoke: “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Yet, we have no idea what he wrote the second time.
Not only this but may Allah (swt) reward brother Ammar in the comments section. He had reminded me that even the text that alleges Jesus (as) wrote something in the sands is a forgery.
The story is a clear forgery. Wasn’t found in the 4th century manuscripts.
The New Testament also mentions that Jesus said things that were not recorded.
“After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. ” (Luke 2:43-46)
Luke does not record any questions that Jesus asked! So this is clear evidence that there are indeed things that Jesus said that are not captured nor recorded by the New Testament.
Since Jesus (as) didn’t really write anything it makes sense we wouldn’t find anything written concerning “Ahmad”. And even if he did write something, we have no evidence it was preserved.
However, note the above text does state that Jesus (as) said:
“Oh children of Israel, surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad.” (Qur’an 61:6)
This is more than sufficient for those who believe. Allah (swt) said that Jesus (as) said it and that is enough for the Muslims.
We are not required to go beyond this. ⬆️⬆️⬆️
Though, for those Christians who are sincere we will endeavor to give them some things to reflect over.
What you are about to read is simply food for thought for those inquiring into the matter.
The New Testament teaches that Jesus never claimed to be the last Prophet.
Jesus (as) never claimed to be the last prophet. That admission in and of itself already is an argument in favour of our proposition. It does not necessarily prove it; however it is a point in favour of our proposition.
Think about this. When other Christian denominations get into debates and discussions with Mormons (The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints) they never shut down the Mormons with saying: “Well, Joseph Smith can’t be a Prophet because Jesus said there would be no more.” If that were so the matter would be an open and shut case.
This is a significant point in favour of the Islamic position.
If Jesus never claimed to be the last prophet, then:
There is no theological barrier to another prophet coming after him. Nothing in Jesus’s teaching rules this out.
First, Jesus himself didn’t shut down the possiblity of true prophets or even other messiahs coming!
“For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Matthew 24:24)
Jesus could have closed the door by stating, “there will be no Messiah after me”. He didn’t. He could have said, “There will be no prophet after me.” He didn’t.
The New Testament gives many examples of prophets who came after Jesus.
Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a lifelong friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. (Acts 13:1)
And Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, encouraged and strengthened the brothers with many words.” (Acts 15:32)
“And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.” (Acts 21:10)
What has passed is more than sufficient to answer the objections of those who attack the Qur’an 61:6. We can see that the Qur’an says that it was something that Jesus (as) spoke and it doesn’t say it was written. We can also see that the New Testament does not have a definite statement about Jesus (as) being the last prophet.
However, for those Christians who like to reflect we will present more information to reflect upon.
Discussing the Identiy and the Prophecy of the Comforter/Advocate.
Why does the identify of the Comforter need clarification?
Now notice something about this text in John 14:26. Notice that the identity of The Comforter seems to be a matter of ambiguity. This ambiguity is followed up by the clarification: ‘Which is the Holy Spirit’
Now to be clear of the Greek manuscripts that we currently know about John 14:26 is read as: “The Comforter, Which is the Holy Spirit.” We are saying this in the interest of transparency and not to over state the case.
However, the very presence of this clarification suggests that the identity of the Paraclete was not self-evident to the original readers. If the meaning were obvious, no clarification would be needed.
What we are going to present is justification to show that this is a scribal insertion. As you can read the text on the left is quite intelligible without the addition ‘which is the Holy Spirit‘.
Some Early Church Fathers saw the possibility of the Paraclete being a reference to a human being.
The Montanists professed to be prophets and to speak under divine inspiration. Their founder, Montanus, claimed to be the Paraclete, the “Comforter,” or Helper, of John, chapter 14. Tertullian became a Montanist before he died.”
Source: (Edgar J Goodspeed How Came The Bible pg. 67.)
Eusebius explicitly states that some “boasted that Montanus was the Paraclete”
Prima Qur’an Comment: Tertullian and Monatanus were early church fathers who played a crucial role in the development of the New Testament text Christians have today. So if such learned men saw the possibility of the Paraclete referring to a human being then who are we to say?
The Christians will claim thath Montanist did not claim that Montanus himself was the Paraclete. Instead, they believed the Holy Spirit spoke through Montanus and his prophetesses. As one can see from the comments with a Christian below there are debates on ratherMontanist theology was monolithic. Sources note distinctions between Monarchian and non-Monarchian Montanist.
“The enemy of God’s Church, who is emphatically a hater of good and a lover of evil, and leaves untried no manner of craft against men, was again active in causing strange heresies spring up against the Church. For some persons, like venomous reptiles, crawled over Asia and Phrygia, boasting that Montanus was the Paraclete, and that the women that followed him, Priscilla and Maximilla, were prophetesses of Montanus.” Source: Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History volume 5 chapter 14
“Christian tradition has identified this figure (Paraclete) as the Holy Spirit, but scholars like Spitta, Delafosse, Sasse, Bultmann, and Betz have doubted whether this identification is true to the original picture and have suggested that the Paraclete was once an independent salvific figure, later confused with the Holy Spirit.”
Source: (The Anchor Bible, 1970, Volume 29A, p.1135)
“The Paraclete is a parallel figure to Jesus himself; and this conclusion is confirmed in the fact that the title is suitable for both. It is clear from 14:16 that the source thought there were sending of two Paracletes, Jesus and his successor, the one following the other”
Source: (The Gospel of John a Commentary, Rudolf Bultmann, p. 567)
The word Paraclete is used in the New Testament to refer to a human being
“My little children, these things write I unto you, that you sin not and if any man sin, we have an advocate (Parakleton) Παράκλητον with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous) (1st John 2:1)
Note: The first time the word Paraclete is used is in reference to a man, Jesus.
Jesus (as) mentions that the Paraklete will be like him -and not unlike him.
“If you love me, keep my commandments, and I will pray for the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter (allon Parakleton) ἄλλον Παράκλητον, that HE may abide with you forever.” (John 14:15-16)
‘Another‘- the Greek word Allon means another of the same kind.
The ‘allon Parakleton‘ means in addition to himself another messenger, not heteros, another of a different kind!
If Jesus (as) meant a comforter of a different kind he would have used the Greek word heteron meaning-another of a different kind. The Greek word heteron is where we get the word heterosexual.
An example of the Greek word heteros being used.
“I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ another (heteron) ἕτερον gospel.” (Galatians 1:6-9)
(Here the Greek word another (heteron) is another of a different kind.)
A derivative of the word Paraclete is also used to reference a human being.
“Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which is translated as “son of encouragement (parakleseos)” (Acts 4:36)
This is such a very curious text that is full of obfuscation. So we have an individual named Joseph, which is being called ‘Barnabas’ by the apostles. Which in turn is being translated as: The son of encouragement [Parakleseos].
Does the Holy Spirit hear and speak?
“I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when HE, the Spirit (Pneuma)Πνεῦμα of truth comes HE will guide you into all truth: (HOW?) For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (akousei) ἀκούσει that shall HE speak (lalesei) λαλήσει and HE will show you things to come.” (John 16:12-13)
HEAR– The Greek verb (akousei) means to perceive audible sounds.
SPEAK-The Greek verb ; (lalesei) means to speak, to emit sounds.
So this HE has to be able to hear audibly and tell verbally.
The two Greek words Akousei and Lalesei refer to a concrete being with speech organs.
Recall the following text:
” But the Spirit itself (auto) αὐτὸ itself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” (Romans 8:26)
Ask a Christiain does the Holy Spirit speak? Ask him (The Holy Spirit) to speak then!
Does (John 16:12-13) apply to the Holy Spirit? No!
A) Shall not speak of Himself.
B) Whatso ever He shall here is what he will speak.
This cannot be a reference to the Holy Spirit as Christians understand it.
The Qur’an is the created speech of Allah and and the Blessed Prophet (saw) is the mouthpiece of this created speech.
“By the star when it goes down your companion is neither astray nor being misled, nor does he say of his own desire. It is no less than an inspiration sent down to him: He was taught by one mighty in power.” (Qur’an 53:1-5)
Another point is if we reflect upon the above text it presents problems for Christian theology.
“For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (akousei) ἀκούσει that shall HE speak (lalesei) λαλήσει and HE will show you things to come.”
How would the speech of the Spirit be different than the speech of the Father in essence?
Why would the Holy Spirit need to be told what to say when his knowledge is the same as the knowledge of the father in essence?
Remember Christians cannot use the fully deity/full man argument like they can for Jesus. The Holy Spirit does not have two natures as the Dyophysitist (majority of Christianity) claim about Jesus.
So the text of (John 16:12-13) does not necessarily need to be about a man. However, it is equally not possible for it to be about the Holy Spirit-at least not as Christians today understand it.
Say, “Whoever is an enemy of Gabriel should know that he revealed this to your heart by Allah’s Will, confirming what came before it—a guide and good news for the believers.” (Qur’an 2:97)
Angel Gabriel hears from Allah and speaks to the prophets. This is exactly what angels do: they receive and deliver messages. Gabriel is a created being who hears the command of Allah.
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity has historically struggled with the subordination question. The text of John 16:13 seems to imply a subordinate figure. A figure who hears and speaks, who receives rather than originates. This fits Gabriel perfectly.
Jesus (as) constantly refers to the Paraclete as ‘He’ and not ‘It’.
When one goes back and looks at all the text Jesus consistently used the masculine pronoun ‘He’, however, Spirit in Greek is used in the neuter gender which could be he, she or simply it.
lLet us look at various translations of John 1:32.
Notice that the King James version translates the neutral gender as ‘it’ where as in the New King James version they switch it to ‘He’. The other versions also make it masculine gender as ‘He’, or ‘himself’. The New International Version is the best translation remaining non committal in the gender specification.
“Likewise the Spirit also keeps our infirmities: For we know not what we should pray for as we ought: But the Spirit itself (auto) αὐτὸ itself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” (Romans 8:26)
The above passages show the Holy Spirit as neuter gender which means passages can translate the Holy Spirit as She, He, It. Whereas it is clear that the Paraklete is only referenced as ‘He’.
Recall the point about Jesus calling the Paraklete as (allon Parakleton) ἄλλον Παράκλητον
Another of the same kind, the same genus. The Holy Spirit can be her, him, or it. Jesus is not reference as ‘her’ or it’.
Another reason why (The Comforter, Which is the Holy Spirit) is a scribal insertion.
The New Testament claims Jesus must go away in order for the Holy Spirit to come.
Jesus (as) is reported to make the following claim:
“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, The Comforter (Parakletos)Παράκλητος will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send HIM unto you.” (John 16:7)
Yet, the same New Testament clearly shows The Holy Spirit concurrent with Jesus.
So Jesus has to depart in order for this Paraklete to come. Based upon this admission the Paraklete cannot be not the Holy Spirit!
The reason why the Paraklete cannot be the Holy Spirit is because Jesus (as) was around when he was around. Ample text make this abundantly clear.
“And the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him.” (Luke 3:23)
(Jesus didn’t have to go anywhere!)
“And Jesus being full of the Holy Spirit returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness.” (Luke 4:1)
(Again Jesus and Holy Spirit are present together.)
“Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father sent me, So I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit.” (John 20:21-22)
(Jesus didn’t go anywhere!)
“For he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.” (Luke 1:15)
John was filled with the Holy Spirit before he was even born, which is unlike Jesus who had to receive the Holy Spirit after baptism. The point being John (being filled with the Holy Spirit) was around Jesus.
(Jesus didn’t go anywhere!)
So all these text prove that this Paraklete cannot by the Holy Spirit as Jesus (as) has been around when the Paraklete has been around.
However, Jesus (as) mentions that he needs to go in order to come. This is also an indirect proof that Jesus (as) is dead and not like some have imagined that he is alive in the heavens.
Conclusion.
Jesus departing. These texts are explicit and have proven to be a problem for Christians. The only thing the Christian can do is to say that the Muslims do not understand these texts. Then the Christian only offers an interpretation of what is obviously clear text.
If the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit, then Jesus was wrong to say the Paraclete would only come after his departure. Either the text is inconsistent, or the identification is incorrect.
John 16:12-13 Does this refer to a Prophet to come or the Spirit of Truth?
“I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when HE, the Spirit (Pneuma)Πνεῦμα of truth comes HE will guide you into all truth: (HOW?) For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (from God) that shall HE speak: and HE will show you things to come.” (John 16:12-13)
So a Christian may object that this can be a reference to a Prophet because the word spirit is clearly used. However, that is because the word ‘spirit’ is being used as a metonymy for a Prophet. It has been used in the following verse in such a way:
“Beloved believe not every SPIRIT (pneumati) πνεύματι , but try the SPIRITS (pneumata) πνεύματα whether they are of God: Because many false PROPHETS are gone out into the world. Hereby know you the SPIRIT of God: Every SPIRIT that confessed that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God:” (1 John 4:1-6)
So you can see that Spirits/Prophets are used interchangeably. So that objection is answered.
However, Muslims can be charitable and agree that this does indeed refer to the Holy Spirit.
Al-Rūḥ Al-Amīn (Trustworthy Spirit)mentioned in the Qur’an.
“‘Which the trustworthy spirit brought down into your heart so that you may be one of the warners.” (Qur’an 26:193-194)
“Say, “The holy spirit has brought it down from your Lord with the truthto reassure the believers, and as a guide and good news for those who submit.” (Qur’an 16:102)
Jesus claims that neither he nor the Bible guide you into all truth.
“I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when HE, the Spirit (Pneuma)Πνεῦμα of truth comes HE will guide you into all truth: (HOW?) For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (from God) that shall HE speak: and HE will show you things to come.” (John 16:12-13)
This means The Bible alone does not contain all truth. It is only a partial revelation at bests and awaiting the Spirit of Truth and his guidance.
By admission Jesus is not guiding you into all truth. There is one who comes after him that does this.
This creates a problem for the Protestant: If the Spirit guides into all truth, then the Scripture can’t be the only infallible authority.
This creates a problem for Catholics/Orthodox: If the Church (tradition) is the vehicle of the Spirit’s guidance, then the Church’s authority is self-referential and circular.
This is circular because:
The Church’s authority depends on the Bible
The Bible’s authority depends on the Church
Neither can independently validate the other
One thing that the Holy Spirit has never guided the Church on.
Here is a major point that the according to the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, The Roman Catholics, the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, the Baptist that the Holy Spirit has never guided any of them on.
You see the above Christian groups will tell you that God is one being in three persons. That these three persons are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They will tell you that the name of the son is Jesus. They will tell you that the name of the Father is Yahweh. But they will never tell you what the name of the Holy Spirit is. Why is that?
Why can they give us the name of the Father and the name of the Son but not the name of the Holy Spirit?
We can put Christian claims to the test in real time.
“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that ask receives; and he that seeks shall find; and to him that knocks it shall be opened.” (Matthew 7:7-8)
So to any Christian on Earth. from any denomination. ask the Holy Spirit to reveal his name to you then. There is not justifiable reason why he shouldn’t.
Christian objections to some Muslim claims.
Now given that some Muslims use (John 16:12-13) as a reference to the coming of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) we will look at some of their ojections and see what is a sound Christiain objection and what is not a sound objection.
1st Christian objection.
“The Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.” (John 14:17)
It cannot be said that Prophet Muhammed (saw) will live inside anyone. This is unless we use some strained metaphor about his teachings living inside of us. However, it is best not to be like the Christians who use truly strained readings of their text. So this is a sound Christiain objection.
However, the above text is contradicted by the following:
“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, The Comforter (Parakletos)Παράκλητος will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send HIMunto you.” (John 16:7)
The Holy Spirit can’t both live with the disciples and be present in their midst and Jesus also needs to depart from the disciples in order to send the Holy Spirit. This is not adding up.
The New Testament does not record Jesus baptizing any of his disciples.
““I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Matthew 3:11)
Again, Jesus can’t be baptizing anyone with the Holy Spirit especially if it is expedient that he (Jesus) goes away.
The text of the Bible contradict the position of the Orthodox Church.
“In the Mystery of Chrismation (Gr. chrismatis,“anointing”), the newly baptized Orthodox Christian receives the Holy Spirit through anointing with oil by the bishop or priest. From the earliest times, the Church practiced Holy Chrismation immediately following Baptism. This same practice held, whether the newly baptized was an adult or an infant. Western churches (like Roman Catholics and Anglicans), in contrast, usually reserve Baptism and Chrismation for those who reach “the age of reason”.
“Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. (John 4:1-2)
So were these disciples unbaptized and performing baptism? If they were baptized why didn’t they receive the Holy Spirit then and there?
Not only this but why isn’t anyone asking the obvious. Where in the hell did the idea of baptism even come from? None of the Old Testament prophets were ever baptized for the forgiveness of sins. The practice is completely alien to the Tanach. Christianity is not in continuity with the Old Testament teachings at all.
2nd. Christian objection.
“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all (πάντα καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα) that I have told you.” (John 14:26)
First notice the need for clarity. The Comforter, the Holy Spirit. So would we know that the Comforter is the Holy Spirit without the text giving this clarifying remark?
That being said Muhammed (saw) did not come in the name of Jesus. Why would he? So that part is problematic.
What is not problematic is that this Comforter will remind them of what Jesus told them.
This means that there would be some lapse in regard to what Jesus taught. Ironically that would include this very passages in which Jesus is supposed to clarify the role of the Comforter as well as it’s identify.
πάντα καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα
The Greek word hypomnēskō unequivocally means “to remind.” It presupposes a lapse in memory.
A reminder is only necessary if something has been forgotten. If the disciples perfectly remembered everything Jesus taught, the Comforter’s role of “reminding” them would be redundant. Therefore, the text logically implies that:
Some of Jesus’s teachings were lost or forgotten.
The Comforter would come to restore or bring back what was lost.
If the Comforter needed to “remind” the disciples, then some teachings were at risk of being lost. This undermines the idea of a perfectly preserved tradition.
The Gospel of John itself (John 21:25) states: “There are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”
This is a clear admission that the Gospel accounts are selective, not comprehensive.
If the Gospel writers themselves admit that they did not record everything Jesus did or said, then the Comforter’s role of “reminding” becomes even more significant: the Comforter will restore what was not recorded, ensuring the essential teachings were not lost.
The text of John 14:26 is an admission that:
Jesus taught more than what is recorded.
The disciples were at risk of forgetting what he taught.
The Comforter would bring back what was lost.
This is exactly what Allah (swt) says:
“And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that which they were reminded. So we caused amonghtem 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)
3rd. Christian objection.
“Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.” (John 16:7)
“But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: (John 15:26)
The Christian objection is sound. Why would Jesus be the one to send the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw). However, as we saw from (John 14:26) it is the father who will send not Jesus. So which is it?
4th Chrisitan objection.
“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever.” (John 14:16)
The problem comes from the word ‘forever’. The Christian will object and ask if the advocate is a reference to the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) how is he with the believers forever?
This is answered by a number of ways.
“To the roots of the mountains I went down, to the land whose bars closed upon me forever. Yet you brought up my life from the pit, O Lord my God.” (Jonah 2:6)
Jonah was not literally in the land of the dead forever; “forever” means for an extended, indefinite period.
“I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” (Matthew 28:20)
Jesus is not physically present but Christians could say they feel his presence or that his teachings live on with them. The same can be said of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw).
It seems rather strange that the other Gospel writers have no mention about this coming Paraklete. Lastly, their remains some curiosity in the retention of the word Paraclete in the Hebrew and Aramaic translations.
The Qur’an 61:6 and the use of a type of literary device to that would be akin to an enthymeme.
“And when Jesus, son of Mary, said: O’ children of Israel, surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being AHMAD.” (Qur’an 61:6)
Do you ever wonder why the verse does not say: ”Giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being MUHAMMED?”
Muhammed comes from the triconsonantal Semitic root H-M-D.
The spelling of the word is different but the meaning is the same.
Jesus (as) did not speak Arabic and so what ever he did say would be in Hebrew or Aramaic and not Greek nor Arabic.
What ever prophecy Jesus (as) made would either be ‘Ahmad’ or the equivalent of it’s meaning.
Allah (swt) by using the word ‘Ahmad’ instead of the word ‘Muhammed’ has given us a type of enthymeme by which those interested can investigate the matter. That is to say it is possible that the scribes
“But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places (yuharifuna l-kaima ‘an mawadi’ihi) and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others).” (Qur’an 5:13)
What may have been the word in Hebrew or Aramaic?
In the above text we can see the word transliterated as: Mahamaddim. They have translated the word as description ‘lovely.
In the Orthodox Jewish Bible they have put the transliterated word as: Machamaddim and have translated it as: (altogether desirable)
Again a different translation this time we get: “wholly desirable” and we can see that the is a masculine noun pronounced as Machmad. The word origin for this is chamad.
By the way do yourself a favour and copy those Hebrew words and put them in Google translate and listen to how they sound.
Notice that the word in Hebrew is to be desired, delighted in, to covet, to be pleased with, and than look at the Arabic equivalent that they give! With its meaning to praise to eulogize.
Look at the Arabic word that they give.
This in and of itself is not a proof, but it is an intriguing piece of evidence that may point to a preserved remnant of the original prophecy.
May Allah (swt) open the eyes and hearts of those who are sincere.
For further reading on topics in relation to Christianity you may want to read the following:
“Believe, then, in Allah and His apostles, and do not say, “Three” Desist from this assertion for your own good. Allah is but One God; far exalted is He above having a son; unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth, and none is as worthy of trust as Allah.’ (Qur’an 4:171)
“Indeed, they are ungrateful deniers of the truth Who say, “Behold, Allah is a third of three” – seeing that there is no deity whatever save the One God. And unless they desist from this their assertion, grievous suffering is bound to befall such of them as are bent on denying the truth.” (Qur’an 5:73)
“And Behold! Allah said: O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say unto men, `Worship me and my mother as deities besides Allah’?” Jesus answered: “Limitless are You in Your glory! It would not have been possible for me to say what I had no right to! Had I said this, You would indeed have known it! You know all that is within me, whereas I know not what is in Thy Self. Verily, it is You alone who fully know all the things.” (Qur’an 5:116)
﷽
The above are the three texts that is used by Christian and Orientalist polemicists to assert that the Qur’an inaccurately describes ‘The Trinity‘.
The Third of Three?
If indeed they co-exist eternally all ‘persons‘ of the Triad are the third of three at any given time.
First point.
Why would the Qur’an describe ‘The Trinity’ when the Bible does not even describe ‘The Trinity‘?
Trinity [N]
a word not found in Scripture, but used to express the doctrine of the unity of God as subsisting in three distinct Persons. This word is derived from the Gr. trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these:That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deuteronomy ; 1 Kings 8:60; Isaiah 44:6; Mark 12:39; Mark 12:32; John 10:30) That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.
“The New Testament contains no explicit trinitarian doctrine. However, many Christian theologians, apologists, and philosophers hold that the doctrine can be inferred from what the New Testament does teach about God. But how may it be inferred? Is the inference deductive, or is it an inference to the best explanation? And is it based on what is implicitly taught there, or on what is merely assumed there? Many Christian theologians and apologists seem to hold it is a deductive inference.”
Prima Qur’an comments: No reasonable or learned Christian will dispute these points. The word ‘Trinity‘ or the doctrine of ‘The Trinity’ is not explicitly stated in the Bible. Given this, why would we expect the Qur’an to define it?
Second Point.
Why would Allah (swt) expand upon something that is simply not true, to begin with?
It would be akin to expecting the Qur’an to expand upon or explain the idea that a circle has three corners. A person can assert that a circle has three corners but it does not make the claim true.
And say, “Truth has come, and falsehood has departed. Indeed is falsehood, [by nature], ever bound to depart.” (Qur’an 17:81)
Third Point.
Look at the Latin word ‘trinitas‘ and the Greek word ‘trias‘. Trinitas means triad and not tri-unity! Trias means triad. Triad means a group of three.
Note that Allah (swt) instructs us as Muslims in the following verse:
“And they say, “None will enter Paradise except one who is a Jew or a Christian.” That is [merely] their wishful thinking, Say, “Produce your proof, if you should be truthful.”(Qur’an 2:111)
Imagine Allah (swt) has told us to ask Christians: “Produce their proofs.”
What do you think they will produce? They will give us their theological arguments.
Which means further investigation on our behalf as regards the Christian claims.
We also note that Allah (swt) says, ‘Christians‘ without defining a particular group of Christians. Christians is a reference in the Qur’an to whole range of those who would identify themselves as Christians. No single or particular group of Christians is singled out in the Qur’an.
Allah (swt) is of course cognizant of the fact that the Christians are in schism.
The following verse is in recognition that Christians themselves have split into various theological camps.
“Indeed, those who have divided their religion and become sects – you, are not associated with them in anything. Their affair is only left to Allah; then He will inform them about what they used to do.”(Qur’an 6:159)
Thus in one’s research what will we fine?
We will find that those Christians who believe in the Athanasian Creed which states:
That we worship one God intrinity (triad) and thetrinity (triad) in unity, neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence.
The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone. The Son was neither made nor created; he was begotten from the Father alone. The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten; he proceeds from the Father and the Son.
nothing is greater or smaller; in their entirety, the three persons are coeternal and coequal with each other.
Fourth Point. Which Trinity?
There is no such thing as ‘The Trinity’. That is just like saying there is only one understanding of Christianity or one understanding of Islam. It is simply fallacious.
When one researches into the various doctrines held among Christians it is not long until we find out about Sabellianism. Which is the belief that ‘The Father’, ‘The Son’, and ‘Holy Spirit‘ are three different modes or aspects of God, as opposed to the Athanasian view of three distinct persons within the ‘Godhead‘.
To appreciate the full scope of Christian theological diversity on this subject, it is helpful to set aside the labels of “orthodox” and “heretical” and simply catalog the distinct frameworks that different Christian groups have historically proposed to understand the so-called Triune God:
Social Trinitarianism. This model proposes Three distinct centers of consciousness united in one divine family/community. This view is defended by modern philosophers like William Lane Craig.
Latin (or Classical) Trinitarianism . This model proposes One single divine essence with three subsistences/relations. This is the dominant model in Western Catholicism and Protestantism, associated with Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
Modalistic Monarchianism (Sabellianism). This model proposes One God who manifests in three sequential modes or roles (Father in creation, Son in redemption, Spirit in sanctification). This persists today in movements like Oneness Pentecostalism.
Economic Trinitarianism. This model Focuses on God’s threefold activity in history without necessarily defining His internal ontology. This is often used as a pragmatic or minimalist approach, emphasizing what God does rather than speculating on His inner nature.
This diversity of models none of which are explicitly stated in the Bible demonstrates that when Christians speak of “The Trinity,” they are not referring to a single, universally agreed-upon concept but rather to a range of competing interpretations.
So on the third point, Allah (swt) doesn’t choose sides with the Christians and their contrived machinations about the divine nature.
Allah (swt) simply says,
“And do not say, “Three” Desist from this assertion, for your own good.” (Qur’an 4:171).
What we find is that Athanasian Christians and Sabellian Christians both need to define God with ‘Three‘ when speaking about Allah.
You will see that in the creeds of the Christians there are many differences.
A major difference between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox is the following:
“The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten; he proceeds from the Father and the Son.”
This is the statement of Protestants and Catholics whereas the Orthodox Christians say the following:
“At this point also it is necessary to note that the Roman and Protestant churches differ in their credal statement about God by adding that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “and the Son” (filioque)—a doctrinal addition unacceptable to Orthodoxy since it is both unscriptural and inconsistent with the Orthodox vision of God.”
Imagine if Allah (swt) stated that the Holy Spirit proceeded from Jesus. The Orthodox Christians would claim it is a misrepresentation of their beliefs.
Now let us go back to the idea of a triad. Triad meaning a group of three.
“Indeed, they are ungrateful deniers of the truth Who say, “Behold, Allah is a third of three” – seeing that there is no deity whatever save the One God. And unless they desist from this their assertion, grievous suffering is bound to befall such of them as are bent on denying the truth.” (Qur’an 5:73)
We found this to be quite a remarkable statement. If as the Athanasian creed states that God is a triad he has always existed as a group.
In fact the following is telling.
“The unity of God is not something we can grasp completely, yet it is woven into the fabric of the gospel. In order to understand, discuss, and preach the gospel, we need to have an understanding of the Trinity. The simplest way to explain it is to say that God is a Divine Team—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They work together in all of God’s works, but now particularly through the gospel for the salvation and sanctification of us needy sinners.”
So what We find interesting about ‘a third of three‘ is that it certainly is true that Christians believe that about God. They may not claim that with their mouths, however, Allah (swt) Is asserting the reality of their belief system.
They have yet to refute the fact that if Jesus is God in essence, and the Father is God in essence, and the Holy Spirit is God in essence, any one ‘person‘ of this Godhead would be a third of three at any given time.
It would be incorrect if the claim was that God was the first of three or that God was the second of three. God has always been in community, according to this particular theological persuasion. This is because Trinitarians reject Modalism.
Trinitarians cannot define the nature of God without asserting that God is one being who is three persons. The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit. Because these three persons are not identical to one another, God has always been the third of three.
“Indeed, they are ungrateful deniers of the truth Who say, “Behold, Allah is a third of three” – seeing that there is no deity whatever save the One God. And unless they desist from this their assertion, grievous suffering is bound to befall such of them as are bent on denying the truth.” (Qur’an 5:73)
Also note that Allah (swt) says of those who claim that Allah is the third of three will go to hell.
No perennialism. No, let’s hug and be friends. Absolutely uncompromising.
What We find interesting is the phrase ‘a third of three‘ rather than ‘a second of three’ or a ‘first of three’, because if God is a triad he would never be a first of three or a second of three ever.
We also believe upon further reflection of this text that it draws subtle attention and a very clever critique of the devastating schisms in Christian theology.
Namely, issues regarding the ‘economic trinity’.
The controversy of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
The idea of Jesus being born in time to which Christians can only reply by a saying ‘with their mouths‘ stating oxymoron’s such as, Jesus being the ‘eternally begotten‘.
Issues relating to subordination and hierarchy in the Trinity.
One of our colleagues once asked a Christian pastor if they could be baptized in the name of the ‘Holy Spirit‘ and ‘Father‘ and the ‘Son‘.
If a person bought a piece of candy and it cost sixteen cents as long as the person has a penny, a nickel and a dime, it shouldn’t matter the order they hand the currency to the cashier.
Remember the Athanasian creed states:
“Nothing is greater or smaller; in their entirety the three persons are coeternal and coequal with each other .”
The ‘ontological trinity‘ and the ‘economic trinity‘ are very much in conflict.
“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” (Luke 22:42)
Is the will of the Son the same in essence as the will of the Father? If the answer is yes they are not distinct persons.
If the will of the Son is distinct or different in essence from the will of the Father than the are not the same being.
Remember the Athanasian creed states:
That we worship one God intrinity (triad) and thetrinity (triad) in unity, neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence.
Saying that this isn’t Tri-theism doesn’t make it not Tri-theism.
Just as Allah (swt) tells us:
“That is their saying with their mouths.” – (Qur’an 9:30)
Simply making an assertion and repeating an assertion doesn’t make the assertion true.
Only a person who would ask a Christian for their evidence as per (Qur’an 2:111) would pick up on these things.
A perennialist like Frijoth Schuon, for example wouldn’t approach the Qur’an in that way.
MARY AS A PART OF THE TRINITY IN THE QUR’AN?
Now let us come to this powerful verse.
“And Behold! Allah said: O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say unto men, `Worship me and my mother as deities besides Allah’?” Jesus answered: “Limitless are You in Your glory! It would not have been possible for me to say what I had no right to! Had I said this, You would indeed have known it! You know all that is within me, whereas I know not what is in Thy Self. Verily, it is You alone who fully know all the things.”(Qur’an 5:116)
The Arabic words rendered as ‘three’, ‘Trinity’ or ‘Triad‘ from the word thalāthah appears twice in different case endings: thalathatun and thalathatin in the Qur’an.
In both verses where (thalathatun and thalathatin) is used, Mary is not mentioned at all!
Likewise, in the verse above neither do we find the terms ‘thalathatun‘ or ‘thalathatin‘ in the Arabic text.
It is incredible to suggest that this verse interacts with the so-called ‘Trinity’ at all.
There is not even a modicum of truth to this.
“Worship me and my mother as deities (ilāhayni) besides God (Allah).”
ilāhayni is the dual form (meaning “two gods”) of the root ilah which means a deity, a source of reverent worship to or other than Allah (swt).
From the sense of the Semitic root, ELH means something with power (i.e. a potential to control affairs, something to seek the help of).
Two examples from the Qur’an below:
“Have you seen he who has taken as his god (ilahahu) his own desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah? Then will you not be reminded?”(Qur’an 45:23)
“Have you seen the one who takesas his god (ilahahu) his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?”(Qur’an 25:43)
In fact, let us assume that in some bizarre universe that the Qur’an was attempting to identify members of the Athanasian triad.
Let us say that instead of Mary it said, ‘The Holy Spirit’. Would this be satisfactory? No, it wouldn’t. It wouldn’t be satisfactory because the Christians influenced by the Athanasian triad would say, “We don’t worship the Holy Spirit, and Jesus as deities besides, Allah. That is because they are all Allah.”
Not only this but the Christians in general will never accept this verse as truthful because of the claim that Jesus is rejecting worship. Christians in general, believe that Jesus is to be worshiped.
No Muslim, academic, perennialist, or otherwise that is to be taken seriously is going to try to isolate this verse from the response of Jesus:
He will answer, “Glory be to You! How could I ever say what I had no right to say? If I had said such a thing, you would have certainly known it. You know what is ˹hidden˺ within me, but I do not know what is within You. Indeed, You ˹alone˺ are the Knower of all unseen.
Allah (swt) is proving a powerful point that Jesus and Mary are not to be worshiped. That worship is directed only to Allah (swt) and to Allah (swt) alone!
In that sense, this verse is arguing with the belief of somewhere in the order of about 1.3 billion of the world’s 2 billion Christians.
“Oh!”, but they say, “Catholics didn’t worship Mary until recent history!“.’
Is that true?
Let us consider the Sub Tuum Praesidium (Beneath Your Compassion), a prayer still used in Catholic and Orthodox liturgy that has existed since 250CE, at least.
“Beneath your compassion, We take refuge, O Mother of God: do not despise our petitions in time of trouble: but rescue us from dangers, only pure, only blessed one.”
The famous perennialist and author Frithjof Schuon made this huge blunder when he had the following to say:
“A consideration which calls for mention here, since we are speaking of parallels and of opposition, is the following: the Koran has been reproached for bringing the Virgin Mary into the Christian Trinity; we will answer this objection here, not only to explain the intention of the Koran, but also, at the same time, to clarify the problem of the Trinity by means of a particular metaphysical accentuation. According to the interpretation which is not theological in fact, but is so by right and finds support in the Scripturas, the “Father” is God in Himself, that is, as Meta-cosm; the “Son” is God insofar as He is manifested in the world, that is, in the Macrocosm; and the “Holy Ghost” is God insofar as He is manifested in the soul, that is, in the Microcosm. From another point of view, the Macrocosm itself is the “Son”, and the Microcosm itself in its primordial perfection is identified with the “Holy Ghost”; Jesus is equal to the Macrocosm, to the entire Creation as divine manifestation, and Mary is equal to the “pneumatic” Microcosm; and let us note in this connection the equation that has sometimes been made between the Holy Ghost and the divine Virgin, an equation which is linked to the feminization, in certain ancient texts, of the divine Pneuma.”
Source: (Page 95 Christianity/Islam Essays on Esoteric Ecumenicism)
He then quotes:
“The Hebrew word Ruah,”Spirit is feminine Let us likewise note that one finds in the Epistle to the Hebrews the expression “My Mother the Holy Ghost” (Mētēr mou tò Hagion Pneuma)”
Source: (Page 95 Christianity/Islam Essays on Esoteric Ecumenicism)
As we have already proven, these statements by Frithjof Schuon or anyone else are statements given by people who show such monstrous negligence of the Arabic text.
Not only that but there is not a single statement attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw) where he equated Mary with being a part of any Trinitarian formulation.
Conclusion:
The Qur’an does not attempt to expand upon the idea that a circle has three corners because such a concept is false, to begin with.
The Qur’an advises us not to say ‘three’ when talking about the divine nature.
Instead, the Qur’an uses the one word that is common to the Torah of the Jews, the New Testament of the Christians and the Qur’an, that word being ‘one’.
Allah (swt) negates the idea of his essence or nature being a triad by negating that he is ‘a third of three’.
Allah (swt) negates the idea that Jesus asked anyone to worship him or his mother.
The Qur’an nowhere identifies Mary with the Athanasian Trinity, Sabellianism, or any creedal formula of the Christians.
Those who make such statements either seem to have an agenda to misrepresent or malign Islam, have completely neglected the text; or have run out of arguments against Islam so they have to pull some of the most desperate and far fetched arguments in their arsenal.
“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.”(Qur’an 5:83)
May Allah guide the Christians to the truth so that they do not burn in the hellfire.
The above article shows us how Islam is a very cohesive, coherent and robust understanding of dealing with those people (that are claimed) not to receive a Messenger/Prophet.
We also have shown that Allah (swt) clearly mentioned that he set rites up for all peoples and that he has indeed sent a Prophet to all peoples.
Christianity, the religion that has a vision of God wherein Prophets and Messengers were not sent to all mankind has very often struggled to deal with this.
They have no concept of the fitra, instead all mankind is fallen, (We know you are not on board with this interpretation Church of Christ-Campbellites) so, We will make the exception.
To us this very question exposes the theological and philosophical mess of Christianity.
As regards Christianity. Is this a huge theological problem for Christianity?
Well, this would depend on the type of Christian that you ask. Not Surprising many Christians have a very straight forward response to this. That is that if God wanted the message of the Gospel of Christ Jesus to reach those people he would have. Therefore if they are damned to eternity in hellfire this is the will of God.
Mostly Christians of the Calvinist persuasion are quite o.k with the idea of people in hellfire forever for never even hearing about Jesus. When Christians ask these questions to their teachers it is because they are struggling with the justice of God in such scenarios.
For example:
John MacArthur whom is a believer in hard determinism was very to the point. You can’t receive salvation except through the name of Christ. Yet he goes on to describe the self evident nature of God, but stops short of telling us how exactly this connects a person to the Gospel?
Let’s think for example people who lived all over the world con-current to the first 15 minutes after the alleged death of Jesus on a Patibulum. It is not conceivable that the gospel reached these people.
Than John MacArthur goes on to categorically rebuke other Christian views that would try to claim such people are saved (a part from Christ Jesus) in the same way people were in the TNCH (Christians call it -the Old Testament).
McArthur also quoted the following text:
“In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31)
So now we will see how top Christian Apologist William Lane Craig deals with this question.
Now for those who do not know William Lane Craig does not believe that God wills and makes people to do evil (like Calvinist do); rather, he is a Molinist.
We will link to Dr. Craig’s article so you can get an understanding of this view:
Skip to 0:10 seconds to avoid hearing music in the intro.
“Now that does not mean that someone can be saved apart from the work of Christ. What it would mean is that the benefits of Christ death could be applied to someone without his conscious knowledge of Christ.” -William Lane Craig
Prima Qur’an comments: So just let that sink in! WoW! You really wonder how this camp will deal with things like:
“If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9)
Now, we could counter by mentioning the mute. However, even than it can be seen that this is a conscious choice.
Than William Lane Craig gives the store away to atheist when he proclaims:
“Rather than live up to his moral law they plunge themselves into immorality and degeneracy and so find themselves condemned before God just on the basis of his general revelation in nature and conscious.” -William Lane Craig
No Craig, stop trying to sell Sam Harris’ book, the Moral Landscape. God is known via reason but moral code and moral law is not known except via revelation! -i.e revealed scriptures, prophets, messengers. Tell us do you believe that morality is known a part from these?
Natural revelation never tells them that God came as a man, lived a sinless perfect life and fulfilled all the righteous demands of the Law, died upon a cross to atone for His people’s sins, and rose from the dead three days later for their justification.
“For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, that is, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what he has made. As a result, people are without excuse.” (Romans 1:18-20)
So Craig did not really answer that woman’s question at all. He waffled. It is possible but in reality not likely at all.
So the question of God’s justice in regard to the Ahl Al Fatrah remains.
We have heard a pastor once say, “If someone can get into heaven without knowing Christ, then the worst thing you can do to them is tell them about Jesus.”
This same logic applies to the Ash’ari creed who believe that people who never heard about Islam enter into heaven no questions asked.
The last thing on Earth we would want would be the spread of the teachings of Islam, if that were the case!
In one conference of Calvinist it seems one of the Pastors had a heightened sense of the racial distributions of God’s mercy.
In other words why are certain demographics seemingly favoured by God to hear the truth?
People groups , Native Americans, Polynesian peoples, Sub Sahara Africans, Chinese pretty much most of them died not knowing Christ Jesus at all. So surely God has shown great mercy to Hebrews, Caucasians, and People of the Middle East in general.
We could have titled this article: The Scandal of Christian Exclusivism: God’s Favor or Geographic Lottery?
Calvinists have no satisfying answer for why God’s sovereign will seems to align so neatly with geography and ethnicity.
“I have no answer to the question why uh vast numbers and not just in very definable people groups that we mentioned in this question but there are people in your street who’ve actually never heard of Christ. Never heard a presentation of the Gospel. It’s not just people groups. There are people who live in contemporary America.”
@7:03 “And I think we need to be very careful about approaching any issue and in particularly this one with a premise that God must act in this way. God is not bound to show mercy to any individual or any collection of individuals. So.So God is not bound to show mercy to an individual but he’s not bound to show mercy to a particular people group either.”
As Muslims we can agree that God is not bound to show mercy to anyone for that matter but what Muslims would assert is that God has asserted that he sent a messenger to every people.
Muslims would also assert that God would not expect every to make a fist with their hand and than punish someone born without hands for failing to do so. This is essentially the Christian view. The Christian view is essentially God creating goats with no wings and than cursed them for not flying.
Christians do have text like the following:
“Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:4)
Well it would stand to reason he would have some type of system to deliver on this. Eventually to deal with this dilemma some Christians had to come up with a belief in God having three different wills.
Decretive will: What God actually decrees (not all saved)
Prescriptive will: What God commands (all should believe)
Permissive will: What God allows (people to reject)
Such a doctrine is not Sola scriptura. It is theological gymnastics to avoid the plain meaning of the text.
This is theological gymnastics to avoid the plain meaning of the text.
“Indeed, Allah does not wrong the people at all, but it is the people who are wronging themselves.” (Qur’an 10:44)
“Indeed, Allah does not do injustice, [even] as much as an atom’s weight; while if there is a good deed, He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward.” (Qur’an 4:40)
So, as we have seen Christians will quote their sources to support their various positions.
“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” (John 3:18)
“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)
“As the Lord said to Nicodemus, Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the spirit, a person will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (John 3:5)
Or is the above statement not so true?
Because this is flatly contradicted by the information we receive in Luke:
“Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43)
So some would argue that an exception is made, or there are situations where there are exceptions. So which one is truly the truth?
But than you have to wonder about the debate around unbaptized babies?
The Catholic Church had to go into a full retreat on this issue, because after further reflection the doctrine is quite dark. Secondly Islam was absolutely demolishing the Catholic Church and continues to do so in the Philippines and in South America over this very doctrine!
The Catholic Church & The Doctrine of Invincible Ignorance. Jesus is not the only way to heaven.
As such it is defined as:
“Invincible ignorance” is a state in which people — such as pagans, non-Christians and children — are ignorant of Christ’s message as laid out in the Gospels not because they refuse to believe, but rather because they’ve not yet had an opportunity to hear and experience it
The Position of the Catholic Church?
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.
This teaching is crystal clear that Jesus is not the only way to heaven!
This is extremely devestating in two ways.
First it contradicts much of their sacred text or writings.
It Contradicts Jesus’ Own Words
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)
“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already.” (John 3:18)
Second it makes mission work dangerous.
If people can be saved through “invincible ignorance,” then:
Those who never hear the Gospel are safer than those who do.
Missionaries are potentially damning people by removing their ignorance.
The Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) becomes a curse rather than a blessing.
It definitely contradicts what Augustine had stated on the matter.
Right under the section that explitly states:
Chapter 2 [II.] Faith in Christ Not Necessary to Salvation, If a Man Without It Can Lead a Righteous Life
…before the actual preaching of the gospel reaches the ends of all the earth — because there are some remote nations still (although it is said they are very few) to whom the preached gospel has not found its way — what must human nature do…but believe in God who made heaven and earth, by whom also it perceived by nature that it had been itself created, and lead a right life, and thus accomplish His will, uninstructed with any faith in the death and resurrection of Christ? Well, if this could have been done, or can still be done, then for my part I have to say what the apostle said in regard to the law: Then Christ died in vain. Galatians 2:21 For if he said this about the law, which only the nation of the Jews received, how much more justly may it be said of the law of nature, which the whole human race has received, If righteousness come by nature, then Christ died in vain. If, however, Christ did not die in vain, then human nature cannot by any means be justified and redeemed from God’s most righteous wrath— in a word, from punishment — except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ (St Augustine, On Nature and Grace, Chapter 2).
There are very deep divides in the Orthodox Church on the issue of people being saved a part from the redeeming nature of Jesus.
God is not the author of confusion, but of peace” (1 Corinthians 14:33)
Some will argue that no one is saved by “ignorance”, meaning that they will be harmed by the additional knowledge of Christ Jesus, or some how saved by the law of nature.
“No one is condemned on the ground of not believing in something they never heard, but on the ground of their sinfulness.”
To which we reply on what consistent basis of justice are they not given the same opportunity to hear the saving gospel?
Indeed why are entire tribes and ethnic groups given over to ruin because of this?
Even than those advocates in the Orthodox Church make exception to this so called “Law of Nature.” Those against Invincible Ignorance will make exception when it comes to the Theotokos (Mother of God) whom they mean to be Mary the Mother of Jesus. The Roman Catholics are with them on the sinless nature of Mary.
They do this to avoid the issue of sin being inherited. Protestants do not make Mary an exception. But then we get into an infinite loop issue that if Mary did not inherit sin, than why not make her father sinless for her to escape the conundrum in the same way Mary is made sinless to escape the conundrum for Jesus.
Protestants have avoided this altogether; namely because little baby fetus Jesus was receiving nourishment from a ‘sinful’ woman. It was her ‘sinful’ body that providing for his sinless body.
The Belief of Jesus descending into hell to save the Old Testament prophets.
“After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits-to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water.” (1 Peter 3:19-20)
Peter once wrote of Paul’s letters:
“There are some things in them that are hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:16).
Meaning Jesus did not keep good on his promise.
“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” (John 16:13)
Meaning that the Holy Spirit did not make these scriptures clear.
However, we can say the same thing of Peter’s letters and especially the above text.
This rather ambiguous text of ((1 Peter 3:19-20) is used by many to say that this is how the Old Testament Prophets eventually were saved. In spite of what you heard about the Prophets in the Old Testament they all went to hell. They have to if everyone who does not believe in Jesus is to be saved. So this doctrine came about.
Even though we have many other text that would contradict this point blank.
“Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God” (Genesis 6:9)
Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe a Non Christian who never confessed faith in Jesus Christ is saved!
John of Damascus said that God freed Trajan from Hell after the prayers of Saint Gregory the Great!
“Further, the Damascene in the same sermon relates that Gregory, while praying for Trajan, heard a voice from heaven saying to him: “I have heard thy voice, and I pardon Trajan; : and of this fact the Damascene adds in the same sermon, “the whole East and West are witnesses. ” Yet it is clear that Trajan was in hell, since “he put many martyrs to a cruel death” [De his qui fide dormierunt]. Therefore the suffrages of the Church avail even for those who are in hell.”
This particular incident comes to us by different ways with some interesting omissions and additions. In one rendition Trajan is physically resurrected since without physical baptism, one who lived after Christ can be saved.
Another view is that a soul can be in hell and be quit of all pain (maybe just roaming around watching everyone else suffer for their sins) who knows what he does in his spare time).
There is a whole book one can read about this idea of Christians saints that could pray for people to be released from hell!
To us it is clear that Christianity does not have a cohesive position on this very important question. The Orthodox, Catholics, & Protestants each seem to have views that once probed ends up causing problems for other doctrinal positions.
The morewe explore and look into the disparate views of the Christian tradition we can’t help but to see how chillingly distant and dark their vision of the divine truly is.
We would not be surprised if one of them ever wrote a treaties entitled: “The Unloved Parts of God.”
“Or like the darkness in a deep sea, covered by waves upon waves, topped by clouds. Darkness upon darkness! If one stretches out their hand, they can hardly see it. And whoever Allah does not bless with light will have no light!” (Qur’an 24:40)
If you think the above is a mess wait until you read how much of a mess their doctrine of salvation is!
“Blessed is the One Who sent down the Decisive Authority to His servant, so that he may be a warner to the whole world.” (Qur’an 25:1)
﷽
“Blessed is the One Who sent down the Decisive Authority to His servant, so that he may be a warner to the whole world. (Qur’an 25:1)
The Qur’an is the primary source of guidance for Muslims. It is the revelation sent by Allah (swt) to his Blessed Messenger (saw). The Qur’an calls itself, the Furqan -which has been translated above as the Decisive Authority.
It is this decisive authority that the Ibadi school uses to determine it’s stance and matters on issues of jurisprudence, belief and all matters in relation to Islam.
The second authority is the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw). The sunnah are the words, deeds, actions and treaties of the Blessed Messenger (saw). This than often gets captured in sound bites which we call the hadith. Some times a particular sound bite contains all the relevant information one needs to be informed on in a particular matter. However, what the scholars of Islam in situations where there are many sound bites (lone narrator reports) that speak on the same or similar topic is to bring them altogether and compare them. Having more data often gives one a bigger picture.
Now when it comes to this second body of legislation or guidance. The Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw) encapsulated in these sound bites. The Ibadi school arguably is among the most zealous and fiercest in regards to preserving the authentic sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw). Thus, we are arguably among the strictest in the decision making process of passes as an acceptable sound bite (lone narrator report), also known as hadith.
The chain of narrators has to check out. This is called the sanad. This itself is subject to various criteria. Everyone in the chain needs to name their source, have met the person they received the information from, have been noted for honesty and piety.
The information the chain presents has to undergo rigorous scrutiny. The information the reporters give is called the matn. An analysis of the speech of the Blessed Messenger (saw). He had the most eloquent speech and if the report words things in a way that betrays this it would be rejected. That information cannot first and foremost conflict with the Qur’an. It cannot contradict a hadith that is stronger than it. It cannot go against reason. It cannot contradict reality, for example: 100% established scientific fact.
“The worst of living creatures before Allah are the deaf and dumb, those who do not use their reason.” (Qur’an 8:22)
So as highlighted above: That information cannot first and foremost conflict with the Qur’an.
This is what brings us to our first objection to this belief. Not only do we not find any evidence for the some second coming of Jesus (as) in the Qur’an. The idea of a second coming of Jesus (as) would conflict with information in the Qur’an.
We are quite confident that the situation among Muslims would be very different when approaching the hadith on this matter if we could sort out the misunderstanding and misgivings that some Muslims have in relation to text of the Qur’an concerning the following:
Proper understanding of Qur’an 4:153-159
Proper understanding of Qur’an 43:61
Consistency with the word tawaffā throughout the Qur’an.
We will have links to articles dealing with these at the end of this article:
“The Messiah, son of Mary, is no more than a messenger, certainly the messengers before him have passed away. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!”(Qur’an 5:75)
This text is in reference to prophet ‘Isa, -Christ-Jesus. If you read this text it does not occur in your mind to think that Moses, David, and Solomon are alive. You have no reason to think that. The text is explicit in that it says, the messengers before him have passed away.
There is no reason to believe that Idris commonly identified as Enoch [Akhnukh] in the Judeo-Christian tradition is alive.
There is no reason to believe that Khidr has been alive since the time of Moses. The above text indicates the opposite of it. That is to say that Jesus is not divine, expect him to pass away like those before have.
However, if Jesus did not pass away like those before him then perhaps the people of that time have credible evidence to suggest divine-like qualities.
“And Muhammed is no more than a messenger; certainly the messengers before him have passed away; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels! he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least and Allah will reward the grateful”. (Qur’an 3:144)
This same text that is used of Jesus above is also used of the Blessed Messenger (swt).
In fact, if Jesus had not already passed away this text would make little to no sense. It could be objected that, ‘Jesus, Khidr, and Idris are still alive; and we expect the same for Muhammed‘.
Why would the All-Wise Creator open himself up to such an obvious counter-argument?
If an objection is raised that this means ‘some prophets and not all prophets‘ the text would lose the thrust of its argument. “is no more than a messenger“.
How does it argue that he is no more than a messenger? It does this by asserting the fact that those before him have died. Thus, we should expect the same of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw).
In fact, if those before him have not died then it can be argued that they [Khidr, Idris, and Jesus] are something other than just prophets.
Again if the objection is raised that this means ‘some prophets and not all prophets‘ than think about the emotional state of the loss of the Blessed Messenger (saw) and Abu Bakr (ra) had quoted from the Qur’an. No one raised any objections to Abu bakr (ra) saying, “Well what about Khidr what about Jesus, what about Idris?”
Further proofs.
“Muhammed is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets, and Allah is ever Aware of all things.” (Qur’an 33:40)
wakhatama l-nabiyina This seal is a barrier in which nothing can penetrate or go beyond. The term alone completely turns to ash any argument that prophets come non-sequentially.
The non-sequential argument is often used by Sunni Muslims. Though they have dissenting voices in their community.
Not only that but all messengers were prophets but not all prophets were messengers. If the term used here was messenger than one could have scope to argue that more prophets would come. However, as the term used here is prophet it is inclusive and final.
Not only this but often the crucial statement ‘not the father of any man among you‘ is overlooked.
There are many Father-Son prophets that have come and gone. Abraham was the father of Ishmael and Isaac. Isaac was the father of Jacob. Nathan was the father of David and David was the father of Solomon.
Even though being a son of a Prophet does not guarantee that one will become a prophet. An example of this is Adam’s son Cain.
However, the fact that the Blessed Messenger (swt)has not left behind any sons and the phrase ‘not the father of any man among you‘ make it abundantly clear that he (swt) is the last.
The Blessed Messenger (swt) message is not meant for one tribe or nation but to the whole of mankind. His message is universal in scope.
“Blessed is He who has revealed the criteria (for discerning truth from falsehood) to His servant so that He could warn all beings.” (Qur’an 25:1)
Verses 33:40 and 25:1 form a powerful one-two combination that knocks out any concept or idea that any prophet will come after the Blessed Messenger (swt). This includes the prophet Jesus or any misguided sects that have claimed prophets after the Blessed Messenger [saw].
“And therefore uh we can say that the Quran strongly suggests the Quran seems to have a very strong indication that Isa is coming. However, it is not definitive and it is not conclusive in and of itself. Just from the language of the Quran and just from the context of the Quran, we give it the presumption but not the certainty. And that’s the first evidence, the Quran.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
Why do the Christians need Jesus to return?
The reason Christians need a second coming is that he (Jesus) really didn’t do much the first time he came.
That is the truth.
Imagine your mother called the store and confirmed that they had the following items in stock: eggs, bread, milk, flour, cheese, spaghetti sauce, broccoli, avocados and mangoes. So Jesus goes to the store and upon his return home, it was found that he had only brought back the Avocados. Mom would be very disappointed.
These are the things the Jews claim the Messiah was to bring about.
1. World Peace. 2. Universal Knowledge of God. 3. The gathering of the exiles. 4. The building of the temple.
In the time of Jesus, there was no temple built. It was destroyed. There was no peace, there was war. There was no gathering of the children of Israel. There was exile.
“Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer. Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you even Jesus. Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from their people.’ (Acts 3:17-23)
When he returns he has anyone who does not accept him to be executed.
“But those mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27)
By the way, according to Acts 3:17-23, the Prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:18 awaits fulfillment.
The building of the temple. <<< This is very important for Zionists. Both Zionist Jews and Zionist Christians. So many Christians who hold what is known as the Dispensational View held by Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and Baptists hate Muslims becuase they believe we are ‘holding up the lunch line‘ so to speak.
As regard the view of the early companions on the return of Jesus.
In Al-Muḥallā bi’l-ĀthārIbn Ḥazm mentioned the following:
“إلا أنهم اختلفوا في عيسى عليه السلام أيأتي قبل يوم القيامة أم لا” (“except that they differed concerning Jesus, peace be upon him, whether he will come before the Day of Resurrection or not.”)
Given that the book is about scholarly consensus (ijmā’) and the preceding discussion is about what the ulamā’ (scholars) have agreed upon it refers to the scholars (the jurists and theologians of the early generations). He is not specifically saying the Companions (ṣaḥābah) differed on this point, but rather that the body of authoritative scholars (which would include the Companions, their successors, and later jurists) held differing opinions on whether Jesus would return before the Day of Resurrection.
This is historically and theologically significant for several reasons:
Evidence of Early Disagreement: It confirms that among the early generations of Muslims (the Companions and their followers), there was not a unanimous consensus on the specific issue of Jesus’s second coming. This nuance is often overlooked in later, more standardized theological formulations.
Ibn Ḥazm’s Methodology: Ibn Ḥazm is famous for his strict and literalist approach to consensus. He only counts something as ijmā’ (consensus) if he can verify that all early scholars agreed upon it without any reported difference. By stating they “differed,” he is demonstrating that this particular point does not meet his rigorous criteria for consensus.
Contrast with Later Sunni Orthodoxy: While the belief in Jesus’s return later became a widely accepted and mainstream Sunni doctrine, Ibn Ḥazm’s report shows that its status as a universally agreed-upon tenet was not absolute in the earliest centuries of Islam.
From Al-Muḥallā bi’l-Āthār Ibn Ḥazm states:
The translation of the above text is:
2. Issue (Mas’alah): “And that Jesus (peace be upon him) was not killed nor crucified, but Allah Almighty caused him to die (tawaffāhu) and then raised him up to Himself. And Allah Almighty said: “And they did not kill him nor impailed him…” [Qur’an 4:157], and “O Jesus, I will cause you to die (mutawaffīka) and raise you to Myself…” [Qur’an 3:55], and He said about him [Jesus] that he said: “And I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them; but when You caused me to die (tawaffaytanī), You were the Watcher over them…” [Qur’an 5:117]. And Allah Almighty said: “Allah takes the souls (yatawaffā) at the time of their death, and those that do not die during their sleep…” [Qur’an 39:42]. So wafāh (death/dying) in our language means sleep and death only. And the word of Jesus (peace be upon him) — “When You caused me to die” — does not mean the death of [ordinary] dying, so it is established that he was made to die a true death [i.e., he died a natural death]. And whoever says that he (peace be upon him) was killed or crucified is a disbeliever, an apostate, whose blood and property are deemed lawful [to take], due to his falsification of the Qur’an and his contravention of the consensus (ijmā’).”- Ibn Ḥazm
3. Issue (Mas’alah): “And that Muhammed, the Messenger of Allah (saw), will not return [to this world], nor will any of his Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), except on the Day of Resurrection, when Allah brings the believers and the disbelievers for reckoning and recompense. This [view] is agreed upon by all the people of Islam, with certainty, before the emergence of the Rāfiḍah [Shi’ah] — those who oppose the people of Islam, who reject the Qur’an, who deny the authentic Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saw), who fabricate lies, and who are contradictory even in their falsehood. And Allah Almighty said: “And you were dead, and He gave you life; then He will cause you to die; then He will give you life [again]; then to Him you will be returned” [Qur’an 2:28]. And He said: “Then indeed, on the Day of Resurrection, you will be brought to dispute before your Lord” [Qur’an 39:31]. So whoever claims a return for ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) — or makes a similar claim for ‘Umar, or for ‘Uthman, or for anyone else, may Allah be pleased with them, or for others — then such a claim is no more than falsehood.”-Ibn Ḥazm
Prima Qur’an comments: Just a note for the readers. The quotes from Ibn Ḥazm contradict the claims made by the Qadiani movement, (either split among them) as well as contradicts the claims made by Todd Lawson and/or the Nizari Ismaili.
“And whoever says that he (peace be upon him) was killed or crucified is a disbeliever, an apostate.”
The hadith evidence.
Let us look at the hadith evidence that justifies our position. Muhammed (saw) is the last and final prophet. He is the seal of all prophets and no one will come after him.
Narrated ‘Aisha:
(the wife of the Prophet) Allah’s Messenger (saw) died while Abu Bakr was at a place called As-Sunah (Al-‘Aliya) ‘Umar stood up and said, “By Allah! Allah’s Messenger (saw) is not dead!” ‘Umar (later on) said, “By Allah! Nothing occurred to my mind except that.” He said, “Verily! Allah will resurrect him and he will cut the hands and legs of some men.” Then Abu Bakr came and uncovered the face of Allah’s Messenger (saw), kissed him and said, “Let my mother and father be sacrificed for you, (O Allah’s Messenger (saw), you are good in life and in death. By Allah in Whose Hands my life is, Allah will never make you taste death twice.” Then he went out and said, “O oath-taker! Don’t be hasty.” When Abu Bakr spoke, ‘Umar sat down. Abu Bakr praised and glorified Allah and said, No doubt! Whoever worshipped Muhammed, then Muhammed is dead, but whoever worshipped Allah, then Allah is Alive and shall never die.” Then he recited Allah’s Statement.:– “(O Muhammed) Verily you will die, and they also will die.” (39.30) He also recited:
“And Muhammed is no more than a messenger; certainly the messengers before him have passed away; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels! he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least and Allah will reward the grateful.” (Qur’an 3:144)
Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “My similitude in comparison with the other prophets before me, is that of a man who has built a house nicely and beautifully, except for a place of one brick in a corner. The people go about it and wonder at its beauty, but say: ‘Would that this brick be put in its place!’ So I am that brick, and I am the last of the Prophets.”
* Note* that the Blessed Messenger (saw) is the completion of the house and the final brick. That would not be so if Jesus (as) was to come again in the future. In fact if any other Prophet were to come than the Blessed Messenger (saw) would not be that final brick. More work would need to be done.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (saw) said, “The Israelis used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number.” The people asked, “O Allah’s Messenger (saw)! What do you order us (to do)?” He said, “Obey the one who will be given the pledge of allegiance first. Fulfil their (i.e. the Caliphs) rights, for Allah will ask them about (any shortcoming) in ruling those Allah has put under their guardianship.”
Thawban narrated that the Messenger of Allah(saw) said:
“The Hour shall not be established until tribes of my Ummah unite with the idolaters, and until they worship idols. And indeed there shall be thirty imposters in my Ummah, each of them claiming that he is a Prophet. And I am the last of the Prophets, there is no Prophet after me.”
“Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “I have five names: I am Muhammed and Ahmed; I am Al-Mahi through whom Allah will eliminate infidelity; I am Al-Hashir who will be the first to be resurrected, the people being resurrected there after; and I am also Al-`Aqib (i.e. There will be no prophet after me).”
“Blessed is the One Who sent down the Decisive Authority to His servant, so that he may be a warner to the whole world.” (Qur’an 25:1)
Due to our belief that the Qur’an is the divine revelation from Allah (swt) and the belief that it is the decisive authority that is sufficient for us.
We are a Muhammedan faith.
Our testification of faith is: I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and Muhammed is the Messenger of Allah. This is what a person says to enter into Islam. If we lived in the time of Jesus (as) we replace Muhammed (saw) with Jesus (as).
In our call to prayer we say: I bear witness that Muhammed is the Messenger of Allah.
Our The Tashahhud in the prayer itself contains invocation of Muhammed (saw) and the sending of blessings and peace upon him.
Sunni Muslims have a very challenging time with the statements of the Qur’an and wrestle with the text. So how do they try and convince people that Muhammed (saw) is the last prophet and yet another prophet will come after him?
We cannot count the times that we have encountered people of incredible intelligence and with formidable intellects that will look you straight in the face and tell you that Muhammed (saw) is the last Prophet and yet Jesus (as) is a Prophet that will come after Muhammed (saw).
The red line below represents Jesus (as). The green line below represents Muhammed (saw).
According to the majority Sunni view (with dissenting voices) Jesus (as) was taken bodily alive to heave where he remains. That means he was there during the time of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw).
After the Prophet Muhammed (saw) has died, Jesus (as) as represented by the red line endures. He lives on. It is clear that this belief is that Jesus (as) is the last Prophet and not Muhammed (saw).
The non sequential argument. Basically Jesus (as) is A in the diagram below and the Muhammed (saw) is B in the diagram below.
It is clear that if A comes before B and comes again after B that A is last in the sequence, and thus the last Prophet. The haqq, the truth on this is so clear that we could ask a small child. Which of the letters appears last. A or B?
Others try to work around this by saying that what it means is that Muhammed (saw) is the last Prophet, but Jesus (as) was granted the title of Prophet before the coming of Muhammed (saw) and not after. Some have even claim that Jesus (as) is stripped of his title of Prophet when he returns. This should show you the utterly desperate situation they find themselves in.
The fact that they have to come up with these various interpretative devices shows you the weakness of their position. These interpretative devices help them to keep the falsehood alive. Repeat it enough and it becomes true.
You will be surprised at the multitudes of people that will accept this line of convoluted thinking. We believe many people realizing all the explaining away does not resolve the glaring contradiction but to be accepted they will silently nod their heads and move on.
Now what has sufficed for us is sufficient. As mentioned the hadith cannot clash with the Qur’an. In our school we do not come up with various scenarios to try and see how we can makes the masses accept the hadith concerning the coming of Jesus (as) conform with the clear teachings of the Prophet (saw) being the last prophet.
So let us recap something that was stated earlier:
Not only do we not find any evidence for the some second coming of Jesus (as) in the Qur’an. The idea of a second coming of Jesus (as) would conflict with information in the Qur’an.
So now let us share with you the view of the overwhelming vast majority of Muslims. Yes, the vast majority of Muslims believe what we are about to share with you. Remember truth is not a democracy. Alas, the majority of people across the world believe what they do as this is what they were taught to believe.
The vast majority believe that the Qur’an 4:157 teaches that Jesus (as) was not put on an ecclesiastical Cross and that instead Allah (swt) made another person look like Jesus (as) and that person was put to death on the ecclesiastical Cross.
The vast majority believe that the Qur’an 4:158 teaches that Jesus ascended in his body into the heavens.
The vast majority believe that Jesus (as) will descend in that body at some point in the future.
To be clear points 1 & 2 have absolutely no proof in the Qur’an. Not only this but we do not have a hadith of the Prophet (saw) that categorically state either belief 1 or 2 above.
Now let us look at the evidences from the Qur’an that are used to advance this idea that Jesus (as) will come back at some unspecified time in the future.
You will see that these so called evidences are inconclusive, weak and require some imaginative reading into the text in many cases.
“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)
“And there is none from the People of the Scripture but that he will surely believe in Jesus before his death. And on the Day of Resurrection he will be against them a witness.” (Qur’an 4:159)
After looking at the arguments from the Qur’an that are used as a justification to try and say that Jesus (as) is coming back in the second article we will be looking at the ahadith that are used. Again, as mentioned in the article before this one concerning the JuJ(Gog) and Majuj (Magog) our scholars are clear that we do not accept that those hadith are tawatur nor are they a proof for us. Nonetheless we will have an article with some discussion concerning it.
In the meantime for those interested you may wish to read:
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:
Prima Quran 