“We strengthened his kingship, and gave him wisdom and sound judgment.” (Qur’an 38:20)
﷽
These verses are a case study that strengthen the position of the Ibadi school that Muslims should not rely upon the Israʼiliyyat material to provide further points of elucidation on any matter of our faith.
Narrated Ubaidullah:
Ibn `Abbas said, “Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Qur’an) which has been revealed to Allah’s Messenger (saw) is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, ‘It is from Allah,’ to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!”
Because this hadith is from Ibn Abbas (ra). Ibn Abbas (ra) is clearly telling us not to rely upon the People of the Scripture while we have the Qur’an.
*Note* Ibn Abbas (ra) according to the hadith clearly states:
“Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything?“
“(And hath the story of the litigants come unto thee?) Then came to you the story of the opponents of David. (How they climbed the wall into the royal chamber…”
“How they burst in upon David, and he) David (was afraid of them. They) i.e. the two angels who entered in on David (said: Be not afraid (We are) two litigants, one of whom hath wronged the other, therefore judge aright) justly (between us; be not unjust) do not be partial and transgress not; (and show us the fair way) show us what is right.”
“(Lo! this my brother hath ninety and nine ewes) meaning 99 wives (while I had one ewe) i.e. one wife; (and he said: Entrust it to me, and he conquered me in speech) this is a similitude which they struck for David in order for him to understand what he did to Uriah.”
“((And it was said to him): O David! Lo! We have set you as a vicegerent in the earth) We appointed you a prophet king for the Children of Israel; (therefore judge aright between mankind) judge justly between people, (and follow not desire) that as you did regarding Bathseba, the wife of Uriah, who was also David’s cousin (that it beguile you from the way of Allah) from the obedience of Allah. (Lo! those who wander from the way of Allah) from the obedience of Allah (have an awful doom, forasmuch as they forgot the Day of Reckoning) because they forsake working for the Day of Reckoning.”
So now we are in a conundrum. Here are some propositions that require reflection.
The above hadith is not true because Ibn Abbas (ra) apparently is relying upon information that neither the Qur’an nor the Blessed Prophet (saw) provides.
The above hadith is true and this tafsir attributed to Ibn Abbas (ra) needs to be put under a microscope and further scrutiny.
Ibn Abbas (ra) used to believe the statement in the hadith, but later changed his opinion, thus we have the bizarre Israʼiliyyat material in his Tafsir.
The bizarre Israʼiliyyat material in Ibn Abbas (ra) tafsir is about an earlier position he held and the hadith captures a latter position in which he corrected the error of his ways.
“We strengthened his kingship, and gave him wisdom and sound judgment. Has the story of the two plaintiffs, who scaled the sanctuary, reached you? When they came into David’s presence, he was startled by them. They said, “Have no fear. We are merely two in a dispute: one of us has wronged the other. So judge between us with truth—do not go beyond it and guide us to the right way. This is my brother. He has ninety-nine sheep while I have one. He asked me to give it up to him, overwhelming me with his argument.” David’s ruling was: “He has definitely wronged you in demanding to add your sheep to his. And certainly many partners wrong each other, except those who believe and do good—but how few are they!” Then David realized that We had tested him so he asked for his Lord’s forgiveness, fell down in prostration, and turned in repentance. So We forgave that for him. And he will indeed have closeness to Us and an honourable destination! “O David! We have surely made you an authority in the land, so judge between people with truth. And do not follow whims or they will lead you astray from Allah’s Way. Surely those who go astray from Allah’s Way will suffer a severe punishment for neglecting the Day of Reckoning.” (Qur’an 38:20-26)
We will give our argument that of the questions that are put forward the position of Ibn Abbas (ra) is either position 2 or 4. The Tafsir attributed to Ibn Abbas (ra) has some bizarre assertions.
In order to believe in either proposition 1 or 3 we would need solid answers to the following questions:
A) Why would angels need to: “climb a wall into a royal chamber?” They are angels why do they need to climb or scale anything?
B) Since when did Prophets serve as a litigant in a dispute with angels?
C) Since when did angels have sheep?
D) Where did Ibn Abbas (ra) get the idea that the sheep are actually women? Why would the Arabic text, which clearly states sheep, be seen as a metaphor for women unless one was reliant upon Israʼiliyyat.
As regards what some commentators think, this is a reference to let me remind the readers of the Biblical account that accuses the Prophet.
Regarding the incident of King David and Uriah, it is alluded to in the Qur’an (38:21-25) in the Parable of the Ewes. It becomes evident that King David did commit some mistake with regard to taking Uriah’s wife. But, of course, we don’t say he committed adultery with her.
Allegedly Prophet David (as) commits adultery and is culpable in murder according to the Bible.
“Brothers, I can tell you with confidence that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.” (Acts 2:29-30)
Next, we have the story of Prophet David (as)
Apparently, if we are to believe the testimony in the Bible concerning David, we find that he was a man who led a woman to commit adultery and committed adultery himself. He lusted after another man’s wife, watched her bath naked. He then had this woman’s husband killed. He tried to hide the fact he made this woman pregnant out of wedlock. This is the same David that, according to Christians, writes all the prophecies concerning Jesus in the 22 Psalms and throughout the Psalms. Even accordingly, David wrote evil things like the following:
“In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah. In it, he wrote, “Put Uriah out in front where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die.”
If I was to measure the Prophets of the Bible-based upon how some Christians measure the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) I could never become a Christian. I would have to reject the testimony concerning the “prophecies” concerning Jesus in the Psalms.
“One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof, he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, “She is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite.” Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (Now she was purifying herself from her monthly uncleanness.)
Then she went back home. The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, “I am pregnant.” “So David sent this word to Joab: “Send me Uriah the Hittite.” And Joab sent him to David. When Uriah came to him, David asked him how Joab was, how the soldiers were, and how the war was going. Then David said to Uriah, “Go down to your house and wash your feet.” So Uriah left the palace, and a gift from the king was sent after him. But Uriah slept at the entrance to the palace with all his master’s servants and did not go down to his house.”
“David was told, “Uriah did not go home.” So he asked Uriah, “Haven’t you just come from a military campaign? Why didn’t you go home?” “Uriah said to David, “The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in tents, and my commander Joab and my lord’s men are camped in the open country. How could I go to my house to eat and drink and make love to my wife? As surely as you live, I will not do such a thing!”
“Then David said to him, “Stay here one more day, and tomorrow I will send you back.” So Uriah remained in Jerusalem that day and the next. At David’s invitation, he ate and drank with him, and David made him drunk. But in the evening Uriah went out to sleep on his mat among his master’s servants; he did not go home.”
” In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah. In it, he wrote, “Put Uriah out in front where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die.” “So while Joab had the city under siege, he put Uriah at a place where he knew the strongest defenders were. When the men of the city came out and fought against Joab, some of the men in David’s army fell; moreover, Uriah the Hittite died.”
“Joab sent David a full account of the battle. He instructed the messenger: “When you have finished giving the king this account of the battle, the king’s anger may flare up, and he may ask you, ‘Why did you get so close to the city to fight? Didn’t you know they would shoot arrows from the wall? Who killed Abimelek son of Jerub-Besheth? Didn’t a woman drop an upper millstone on him from the wall, so that he died in Thebez? Why did you get so close to the wall?’ If he asks you this, then say to him, ‘Moreover, your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead.’”
“The messenger set out, and when he arrived he told David everything Joab had sent him to say. The messenger said to David, “The men overpowered us and came out against us in the open, but we drove them back to the entrance of the city gate. Then the archers shot arrows at your servants from the wall, and some of the king’s men died. Moreover, your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead.” “David told the messenger, “Say this to Joab: ‘Don’t let this upset you; the sword devours one as well as another. Press the attack against the city and destroy it.’ Say this to encourage Joab.”
“When Uriah’s wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him. After the time of mourning was over, David had her brought to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing David had done displeased the Lord.”(2nd Samuel 11:2-27)
What does the displeased Lord do with David?
“This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes, I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’”
“Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” “Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord,the son born to you will die.” “After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.” On the seventh day, the child died.”
David’s attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, “While the child was still living, he wouldn’t listen to us when we spoke to him”. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate.” “David noticed that his attendants were whispering among themselves, and he realized the child was dead. “Is the child dead?” he asked.” “Yes,” they replied, “He is dead.”
“Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed, put on lotions, and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the Lord and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request, they served him food, and he ate.” “His attendants asked him, “Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!”
“He answered, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.” “Then David comforted his wife Bathsheba, and he went to her and made love to her. She gave birth to a son, and they named him Solomon. The Lord loved him; and because the Lord loved him, he sent word through Nathan the prophet to name him Jedidiah.” (2 Samuel 12:11-25)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
So the Lord (Jesus The Son, The Father, and that third wheel, aka- The Holy Spirit) was displeased with David’s actions. So what do they ultimately do? What do THEY DO to David?
They kill David’s infant son! Imagine David saying to his son: “Sorry, son but Daddy got into a fling with some other dudes wife and now well lil tyke you’re going to have die for that!”
They make a decree that David will have his wives taken from him and made to commit adultery in broad daylight. God of the Bible via Prophet Nathan: “What you did displeased me. You know I don’t like it when people commit adultery. To prove my point I am going to decree to have your wives go and commit adultery in broad daylight just to show you how much I dislike adultery!”
Lastly, they reward David with a son through the wife who cheated on her husband and gave her Solomon who in return became a King of Israel and a Prophet! God of the Bible via Prophet Nathan: “David what you did was very bad and even though I killed your son who did not have anything do with your sexual proprietaries but that is water under the bridge, lesson learned. Thus, I am going give you another son through the same women that cheated on her husband.”
What in the Cinnamon Toast Crunch kind of justice is this?!
Notice the above text states:
” I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives.”
Such a notable threat, but we don’t hear anything of that kind. The text says that I will take your wives and take them to one who is close to David, and he will sleep with your wives. Which begs the question. How certain can we be that this child that Bathsheba had with David was his child at all?
We have no idea how much time has passed since the death of Uriah and although the text goes out of its way to make it seem that he never had intimacy with her for some time, we can’t be entirely certain. Not only that, but apparently, according to the threats issued by the God of the Bible to David that he would take his wives and give them to someone who will commit adultery with them, how certain can we be that this individual is not the father?
Anyway, this is the depiction of the deity of the Bible and the “justice” of that deity. There is absolutely no justification to think that the passage of the (Qur’an 38:20-26) had anything to do with that, at all!
Not only this but the above text is in major contradiction with the above.
“But the children of the murderers he did not execute, according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, in which the Lord commanded, saying, “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; but a person shall be put to death for his own sin.”(2 Kings 14:6)
Note that the children of the murderers were not executed. But the above text has:
“You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord,the son born to you will die.”
Shaykh Dr. Khalan Al Kharousi (H) has an explanation for this. All praise be to Allah (swt).
Dr. Khalan Al Kharousi (h) mentions a very important point. That here and there a particular mufassir (exegete) would look at the Qur’an through the lens of the Israʼiliyyat material. Which brings us that unfortunate bit about Uriah and David. The text of the Qur’an is far, far from this.
Now that is the explanation given by Shaykh Dr. Khalan (h).
There is another explanation given by our teacher, Shaykh Dawud Bu-Sinani (h) of Algeria.
Shaykh Dawud’s explanation is very straight forward. He focuses on the following text:
So judge between us with truth—do not go beyond it and guide us to the right way.
David’s ruling was: “He has definitely wronged you in demanding to add your sheep to his.
Then David realized that We had tested him so he asked for his Lord’s forgiveness, fell down in prostration, and turned in repentance
We have surely made you an authority in the land, so judge between people with truth. And do not follow whims or they will lead you astray from Allah’s Way
So the straight forward explanation given by Shaykh Dawud Bu-Sinani of Algeria is that the hakim should hear both sides of the story. David (as) upon hearing that one brother had the bulk of the sheep, gave in to his whims and was hasty in coming to a decision. However, he immediately realized this. As if he was going to turn to the second brother and say (now you speak) but by than David (as) already showed himself not to be impartial. Thus, David (as) was quick to turn in repentance to Allah (swt).
For those of you who understand Arabic, do not miss out on this gem of the Ummah, Shaykh Dawud Bu-Sinani (h). Ustadh Nouman Ali Khan attended his lecture series in Oman.
Here is a 7 hour Qur’anic course contains seven chapters dealing with the foundations of faith and the practical rules that a Muslim should follow in order to meet his Lord with a blank page free from the traces of sins and sins!
“And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. Those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge of it, but only follow conjecture. For certainly, they did not kill him.” (Qur’an 4:157)
﷽
As mentioned before we do a tight textual analsysis of the Qur’an in order to reach the correct understanding. This is done by comparing a word with all other instances of that word in the Qur’an. This is done by also comparing the context of verses with their surrounding verses. This is known as Tafsir al-Quran bi-l-Quran. (Interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an)
In a discussion on Blogging Theology titled: “Jesus was not crucified: the evidence with Dr. Ali Ataie.” Dr. Ali Ataie made some very interesting assertions. Assertions which move him closer to our position.
@40:28 Dr. Ataie states: “But I do believe that myth and legend has probably soo permeated the gospel accounts of Jesus passion narratives that it is not at all beyond reason to dismiss them completely as historical fiction!”
Prima-Qur’an comments: Allahu Akbar! there you go Dr. Ataie now that is the ticket! Than the idea that someone was “crucified” is likely based upon what? Myth and legend.
Dr. Ataie gets into his understanding of: Qur’an 4:157 “It was made to appear to them so.“
@53:38 “They did not have information. It did not come from a reliable source.” @54:11 “Jews and Christians ended up following hearsay reports about some crucifixion event from non eye-witnesses….”
Prima-Qur’an comments: Dr. Ataie state: ” “Jews and Christians ended up following hearsay reports about some crucifixionevent from non eye-witnesses….”
I would replace some words in the above sentence: “Jews and Christians ended up following hearsay reports about some imaplement event from non eye-witnesses….
“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), (Galatians 3:13)
Paul is quoting from a text that mentions a post mortem suspension punishment. The individual is killed first and while dead then supsended. Christians understand the Crucifixion as an ante mortem suspension punishment where the person is killed via asphyxiation while alive and being suspended.
This is exactly what shubbiha lahum means. It is not shubi ha alayhim!
In fact because we love you the readers insh’Allah I will give you a sneak peak at one of the slides that Shaykh Hilal and I are working on.
No pay wall and no gate keeping information!
This is the critical linguistic and contextual refinement. This is a far more precise reading of the phrase شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ (shubbiha lahum) and the verses that follow.
From the Ibadi perspective and reading of the verse the point fundamentally shifts the understanding of the verse from a narrativeabout a visual illusionin real-time toa critique of a historical claim based on unreliable transmission. Let’s integrate this correction.
The Correct Understanding of Point 4:167
The phrase وَ لٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ (“but it was made to appear so to them”) does not describe a miraculous event witnessed by onlookers in real time. Instead, it critiques the oral tradition and historical narrative that the Jewish community subsequent to the event had come to believe and propagate.
The Qur’an’s own subsequent words completely invalidate the possibility of this being an eye-witness account:
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِنْهُ – “Indeed, those who differ over it are surely in doubt about it.” (4:157)
Doubt (شَكٍّ – shakk) is impossible for someone who witnessed an execution firsthand.
مَا لَهُمْ بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ – “They have no knowledge of it.” (4:157)
Knowledge (عِلْمٍ – ‘ilm) is exactly what an eye-witness would claim to have.
Assumption (الظَّنَّ – al-ẓann) is the antithesis of eye-witness testimony.
A Hadith that is classified as الظَّنَّ (al-ẓann), meaning “conjectural” or “of presumptive status,” and comes from a lone narrator (or a single strand of transmission) is known as a Khabar al-Āḥād (خبر الآحاد).
Here’s a detailed breakdown:
Definition: A Khabar al-Āḥād is a report (Hadith) that does not reach the highest level of mass transmission (Mutawātir). It is narrated by one or a few individuals at any stage of its chain of narration (isnad), such that the number of narrators does not generate absolute, certain knowledge (ilm al-yaqīn) in the listener. Instead,it generates presumptive knowledge (ilm al-ẓannī), which is sufficient for action but is theoretically open to doubt.
Therefore, the Qur’an is not describing a supernatural trickery of the senses that happened in the past. It is describing the state of the received narrative in the present tense of its revelation.
The chain of meaning, according to this corrected interpretation, is:
The Claim: A specific Jewish community (contemporary to the Prophet Muhammed or just prior) boasts, “We killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” This is their historical claim.
The Denial: The Qur’an flatly denies this: “And they did not kill him, nor did they impale him (وَ مَا صَلَبُوهُ).”
The Explanation for the False Claim: How did this false claim arise? The event was “made to appear to them (شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)” in their oral traditions and historical accounts. The truth was obscured within their own narrative.
The Proof of the Falsehood: The proof that this claim is a baseless tradition and not established fact is that those who argue over it are in doubt, devoid of certain knowledge, and following only assumptions about what truly happened. True eye-witnesses to a capital punishment would not be in a state of doubt and conjecture; they would be certain.
“And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. Those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge of it, but only follow conjecture. For certainly, they did not kill him.” (Qur’an 4:157)
﷽
This is a recent e-mail sent to Todd Lawson an Emeritus Professor of Islamic thought at the University of Toronto.
I sent this inquiry as I am genuinely curious as to why he or anyone for that matter think that the Qur’an 4:157 seem to be interacting with anything that the Romans have done, or that the text is talking about a historical event known as the “Crucifixion” or that the Qur’an is denying/or affirming anything about a Cross at all.
Greetings Professor Lawson
I hope this email finds you in the best of health.
I had read your book “The Crucifixion and the Qur’an: A Study in the HIstory of Muslim Thought.”
It was certainly an interesting read.
You have noted how extraneous material has influenced the Sunni Tafsir tradition and popular interpretation of Qur’an 4:157.
So to this point I am curious as to why you think the Qur’an engaged with an historical event popularly known as “The Crucifixion” at all?
The reason I ask this is because when one looks at the immediate text of the Qur’an 4:157 there does not seem to be any mention of Romans or Roman involvement at all.
I am deeply interested why your good self or anyone would feel that the Qur’an 4:157 engages with an historical event popularly known as “The Crucifixion” at all. I believe that a reading of the text without extraneous material tells us that the text is interacting with certain Jews who were making certain claims about Jesus.
When we read Qur’an 4:155 for example:
“They have incurred Allah’s wrath for their breaking the covenant, and their rejection of the signs of Allah and for slaying Prophets without right, and for saying: ‘Our hearts are wrapped up in covers-even though in fact Allah has sealed their hearts because of their unbelief, so that they scarcely believe.”
I believe we both concur that it would seem out of place for that text to address the Romans of the time of Jesus.
Furthermore the Qur’an 4:157 has a double denial in the text. They did not kill him nor did they (salabu). The initial denial is general and it can easily accommodate any understanding of a possible demise of Jesus.
It is immensely curious to follow up a general denial that can accommodate any particular understanding of any possible demise of Jesus with a particular denial immediately after.
Is it not more sensible in keeping with the immediate text and surrounding text to see this as the Qur’an interacting with particular claims made by Jews about Jesus? Rather these claims are based upon any historical event, document or even oral transmissions in certain circles that the Qur’an would be familiar with?
Given that this seems to be the very obvious case, how do you propose somehow Romans, and a “Crucifixion” is posited upon the text of Qur’an 4:157?
It is peculiar because Jews do not crucify people in their law. It is not a part of the Torah nor of the Talmud of which I am sure you are aware.
They do have laws about killing people and then impailing them. They do have assertions about those impaled being cursed by God.
Equally curious is the idea that (salabu) would translate to a Latin Cross, or the Tau Cross.
Given that the Qur’an in (7:124); 20:71; & 26:49) all describe cutting off the hands and the feet and given what we know about supporting the body weight on an ecclesiastical “Cross” it is it not presumptuous of us to assume Latin Cross, Tau etc?
The two noun forms in Qur’an 86:7 & Qur’an 4:23 which relate to the loins and the lumbus region seem to forcefully argue with a type of punishment that would involve impalement rather than anything to do with being tied to a patibulum and affixed to a crux or stake and than having nails driven in ones hands and feet.
When we look at the text of Qur’an 5:33 on page 31 of your book you state:
“the criminal was killed by a separate means before their corpse was publicly displayed on a pike or cross.”
This does not seem to correlate to what Christians have in mind when they invoke the “Crucifixion” of Jesus. They seem to think this is a death on a cross and not a death prior to a cross.
I also felt that pike was more appropriate than cross given what we know about the Islamic legal schools. None of the legal schools, Ibadi, Zaydi, Zahiri, Shafi’i, Imami, Maliki, Hanafi or Hanbali make it a requirement to put someone on a patibulum and affix that patibulum to a crux or stake and than proceed to drive nails in the hands and feet.
Much more can be said. Again I believe my initial inquiry is that if we do a plain reading of Qur’an 4:157 or even invoke the immediate context where are we drawing upon the idea that this is interacting with something the Romans are said to have done to Jesus?
Thank you for your time.
Have a blessed weekend ahead.
If you would like to read more on this subject I invite you to read the following:
“They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it.”(Qur’an 61:8)
﷽
When it comes to Christians and Islam there are a few scenarios that take place.
a) Either they begin a serious study of Islam and end up seeing that Islam is a more cogent faith and world view than Christianity ever could be. They convert to Islam as I have.
b) They remain convinced of their own faith but develop a deep admiration and appreciation for Islam and Muslims (rather they admit it publicly or not)
c) Their hearts become diseased and their spiritual ailments are amplified and this becomes obvious in time. Greed, avarice, lust, anger, hate, racism begins to drip from their writings and public statements. Without fail repeatedly these people end up being humiliated publicly in this life. The hereafter is a painful and everlasting torment for them.
This article will focus on group C. Where better to start than with Zionist Evangelist Phil Arms and Phil Arms ministries? These are just some of the books that are Anti Islam and filled with pro-Israel Platitudes.
Is Fanatic Islam a Global Threat? by Phil Arms
Light in the Shadow of Jihad by Phil Arms
Unholy War-America, Israel and Radical Islam by Phil Arms
However, what we do not know is this, just like Robert Morey who was removed from his Church and asked to leave F.I.R.E (an Evangelical Christian Outreach) Phil Arms too was removed from his church! The full story follows. I am sure that sooner or later sincere Christians are going to get real tired of these Evangelist, and Pastors and Apologist who claim to be fighting ‘the good fight’ against Islam but instead are busy embezzling funds, and robbing the congregation of their hard-earned money, and molesting members of the body of Christ both physically and spiritually!
“Phil Arms grew up in West Texas. His dynamic Christian mother raised her six children in the local church. However, Phil did not commit his life to Christ during his younger years and chose to join himself with the sub-culture of the sixties and seventies in Houston, Texas. After experiencing one dead end after another, running from the love and voice of God, he began to search for reality and gave his life to Christ on a street corner in 1972. Immediately after his conversion, he began a ministry on the streets of Houston, Texas, witnessing to those in need of Jesus. Within a short time, God began to open wide the doors for Phil to minister in churches, schools, and evangelistic rallies.” Source: http://www.lifereachministries.com/aboutus.aspx
The interesting part above is that it says that Pastor Phil “chose to join himself with the sub-culture of the sixties and seventies in Houston, Texas.” Anyone who knows about the 60s and 70s knows that the sub-culture referred to at that time was one of drugs, drugs and you guessed it more drugs…
No amount of lawyering could have placated Jim Miller, who rose from his seat in the crowd and said, “I will not stand for more lies.” Taken aback, Arms threatened to have the dissenter removed. In a passively resistant protest, Miller threw himself on the green-carpeted steps below the pastor and prayed for him to repent. When Arms had finished his speech, he crawled down onto the steps with Miller and spoke to him harshly under his breath, like a parent scolding a child in public. “Now, God’s told me to wash your feet,” Arms said. “I want you to get up here right now.”
But the forced foot-washing did little to bring Miller back into the fold. From the altar, he pointed out that Arm’s repayment of the money didn’t negate the fact that he stole it, and this sparked shouts for truth and repentance throughout the congregation. Finally, Suzanne Arms took the stage to try to help her husband defend himself, but she ended up just giving the crowd more of the blood they wanted. “Yes, he took too many drugs, he’s confessed that,” she said. “Yes, he took the money, and he shouldn’t have — it was drug-driven.”
Apparently, he has been wrestling with the drug hydrocodone. The following picture is taken from one of his publications, “The Man Who Would Be God.”
If you take a hard look at the picture it makes you wonder what goes through the minds of people who conjure up such images. In fact, the image looks like one person who is two different beings, a split personality, or someone who maybe wrestling with something (drugs) or someone (Jinn or evil spirits). Personally looking at it gives me the creeps, and I do not know why Christians are not spiritually guided as not to have books with such images in reach of their children. The book itself, though a polemic against the Anti-Christ, does an excellent job of subliminally projecting satanic imagery. Also, it says “PHIL ARMS” underneath. For those with a discerning spirit if you get chills I think its time you pick up the Qur’an and stop listening to the lies spread by Satan’s minions. If I wrote a book I would put ‘By Phil Arms’. Why would you have such a controversial image and then just put your name at the bottom? Is Allah trying to tell us something?
In Conclusion: We as Muslims should make du’a and pray that Allah guides Phil Arms, his ministries, and those duped by his drug charades and lies so that they can understand the truth and simplicity of Islam. I invite everyone who ever listened to Phil Arms ministries to take the time to rethink some of the statements he may have made about Islam while under the influence of narcotics. Repeatedly we see those who direct their energies against Islam are exposed for their nefarious agendas and inwardly shallow spirits groping in darkness and being used as pawns of Satan. May Allah guide him and his family to Islam and may Allah give him a job that provides him with sustenance and makes things easy upon him. Next up is Assemblies of God’s very own Jimmy Swaggart.
Reverend Jimmy Swaggart (Assemblies of God) World famous televangelist and firebrand preacher will always be remembered by the world for his fiasco with the prostitute(s) in Louisiana. Jimmy Swaggart preached what he thought to be the Gospel of Christ Jesus to over 132 countries around the world! This all changed one fateful evening when his fall from grace came.
The interesting thing surrounding this event from the Muslim perspective is his well-known debate with Shaykh Ahmed Deedat.
In the debate “Is the Bible God’s Word” the two titans of Christianity and Islam, the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart and Shaykh Ahmed Deedat had finally met.
The background of the debate seems to have ignited after Jimmy Swaggart appeared on television claiming the Qur’an to be “incantations of frail men”. The Muslims of course did not take too kindly to the statement and thought that a debate between Reverend Jimmy Swaggart and Shaykh Ahmed Deedat should be arranged.
During the opening of the debate Reverend Jimmy Swaggart made an interesting remark on polygyny to the effect that he said:
“I was just talking to Mr. Deedat this afternoon I should say this evening really, and he’s one of the gentlemen whom you meet and you like him instantly. He was teasing my wife and I and said Islam allows four wives. He just corrected me he said, ‘up to four’ and I said, “Well Christianity only allows one so I had to get the best on the first shot”.
The link to the debate: “Is the Bible God’s Word” is as follows…
My review of the debate: I thought that Reverend Jimmy Swaggart was able to maintain his composure in the debate which was quite important. The most glowing comment as a true follower of Christ Jesus was his statement, “I want to say that every true Christian loves the Muslim people and I mean that with all of my heart.” His reference to a person crying out in the name of Muhammed for a demon to come out of a possessed individual Is a questionable assertion. I thought Shaykh Ahmed Deedat did an excellent job of dealing with the issue of miracles and just how important they are.
What happened subsequently after the debate will soon not be forgotten. Reverend Jimmy Swaggart was caught being defiled with prostitutes.
The link to Reverend Jimmy Swaggart’s confession of being with prostitutes is as follows…
Now, this is very interesting because of his attack on Islam’s position of polygyny. Now it would be very awkward for me as a man to say that a man should marry another woman simply to gratify his sexual desires; however why a man chooses to take a second wife is not my concern. Muslims simply point out that time and again we get attacked for polygyny while many people practice polygamy and polyandry in the form of sexual freedom with no strings attached.
Islam is simply saying to the Christians and Jews nowhere does the Bible stipulate not to have more than one wife. It is simply a modern norm that has been adopted by most Christians. Jesus, John, and Paul were never married so they cannot be examples of monogamy.
Reverend Jimmy Swaggart’s plea to ‘ship the Muslims back home’.
The Reverend Jimmy Swaggart made the recent outburst that every single Muslim in the United States college campuses should be shipped back to where they came from. Source: (https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Beliefs/story?id=130008&page=1)
This outburst is very disheartening on two accounts.
1) If every Muslim is shipped back to where they came from, what would happen to the Muslims who are born right here in America? So I am not sure his statement was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
2) Why would we want to ship Muslims back to countries that deny the Gospel of Christ Jesus? Why not keep them right here in America where they can still be reached through the Campus Crusade for Christ? This also makes me hesitant to believe the statement was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
In Conclusion: I think Muslims and people of all faith persuasions should take a step back and examine this debate and what happened before the debate and subsequently. We pray that the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart, whom otherwise a cordial man, may reconsider his comments that all Muslim students should be made to leave the United States. We also pray that Allah opens his heart to the truths and beauty of Islam.
Next up is Ted Haggard. He was the head of the 30 million-strong National Association of Evangelicals. In the end, he was a man who struggled with his Gay Sex and Methamphetamines.
Somehow, this doesn’t surprise me coming from Ted Haggard who was the former head of the 30 million-strong National Association of Evangelicals. The following article taking from a website that also supports Pat Robertson (the peaceful Christian who says we should kill Hector Chavez, president of Venezuela, is a shareholder of Coors Beer, and has shady ties to blood diamond mines in Africa). This man Ted Haggard was also a spiritual adviser to George Bush Jr. if that says anything! He was in the popular DVD the Jesus Camp video and in this video, he was bashing homosexuals.
However, as one will see after this short article of his attacking Islam, Ted Haggard had to step down from the National Association of Evangelicals for being caught doing Homosexual acts with another man and for his abuse of Methamphetamine.
I appreciate that he did some research on the issue of abrogation but it’s still skewed. In the end
Any way a sample of his anti-Islamic diatribe is as follow
The first picture is very telling. Imagine Muslims engrossed in prayer and some Christian says this to his son, “They’re praying to their moon god son.” He obviously must be saying that so loud as in the cartoon the one Muslim hears him and abruptly stops his prayer. So what Robert Morey is doing here is saying that Christians should come across as people who have no class. I can’t imagine a Muslim witnessing a Christian in prayer and saying to his son, “They are worshiping their FALSE GOD CHRIST.” So loud as to hope the worshipers would hear him. That would be absolutely tactless.
The Rise and Fall of Robert Morey: It’s O.K To Tell Lies!
Probably one of the best places to start with Dr. Robert Morey would be his view on truth.
Five Point Calvinist and “Saint of God” Robert Morey (who was on the run from legal prosecution in California) and was rumored to be trying to mount some kind of come-back in the Pennsylvania area made a living off the good people of America by peddling lies to the unwary masses about Islam.
Robert Morey (One of God’s Elect in Reformed Theology) made a claim to fame with his bizarre and now-debunked claim ‘Allah is the Moon-God’ theory.
Listen to what God’s Elect has to say…
“Well that’s the whole point is that the word, ‘Lie’ needs to be defined. Uh sometimes not telling the truth, all of the truth is your Moral Obligation. And you have a moral obligation to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth at all times to anyone who asks you. You would say, ‘That’s not in the Bible’. The moral thing to do is for me not to tell you. You ain’t getting nothing out of me. Those issues relating to rather you have a moral obligation to tell the whole truth at all times to everyone. That needs to be answered by pointing out you don’t. You do not owe them the truth. See that’s another fallacy. People run around thinking ‘life is just’ and they run around thinking you owe the truth to everyone. You don’t! That’s what the Bible teaches.”-Robert Morey.
Think about that! Oh and did Robert Morey not only stretch the truth he outright lied again, and again and again.
Reformed Christians believe that God is a deceiver and that God in his sovereignty can lie to you. They believe you can be given an evanescent grace (in which you may think you are saved but in actuality, you are not). More on that in future post-Allah-willing.
In this debate with Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al Mansour, Morey makes the outlandish claim that Muslims killed 100 million Armenians! Then he changes the number and says it has been going on ‘since the 1st century’! The Muslims of the Prophet Muhammed (saw) was not even around during the 1st century! Then he made some claim about variant readings and Dr. Abdullah challenged him to produce a single one, his best one. Dr. Morey was so embarrassed by this debate he didn’t want it to be published or circulated at all!
Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al Mansour.
Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al-Mansour is an internationally esteemed attorney, author, and lecturer whose views have garnered worldwide attention; and serves as a special advisor to HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud of Saudi Arabia.
Dr. Al-Mansour is an International Attorney and Businessman. His college education was obtained at Howard University, where he majored in Philosophy and Logic, and at the University of California School of Law at Berkeley where he received his Doctor of Jurisprudence degree. His web site is at the following address: http://www.world-hi.com/AAPressHome.html
Dr. Robert Morey also declined to debate Muslim apologist Hamza Abdul Malik on the issue: “Is Allah the true God?”. Morey and his camp declined that offer. Dr. Morey claimed to have a doctorate in “Islamic Studies” but neither he nor anyone else could find out where it came from.
Robert Morey also claims a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies from Louisiana Baptist University (LBU). This is an unaccredited institution that is not recognized by the U.S. Department of Education or by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). LBU is a “distance learning program” (teaching via the internet), with one alumnus boasting that “the LBU program may be completed 100% via distance learning” while noting that “I did spend one week on campus”. In other words, the Ph.D. is “earned” over the internet, not the classroom.
LBU is listed in Steve Levicoff’s Name It and Frame It?: New Opportunities in Adult Education and How to Avoid Being Ripped Off by “Christian” Degree Mills as a “degree mill”, a term used to refer to groups that issue bogus degrees for a fee. Outside his book, Levicoff put it bluntly: “LBU is a joke.” Perhaps LBU’s website words it best: “LBU has both the experience and reliability to provide an efficient quality degree program tailored to your needs.” Indeed! This is a case of “PhD-for-a-fee or your money back.”
In 1998, the Louisiana Board of Regents (a government agency responsible for overseeing higher education) issued a unanimous ruling to deny LBU an operating license for its business education programs and ordered the school to cease admitting students and cease advertising. LBU was later exempted based on the religious institution exemption and was allowed to operate as a religious institution.
Once again, things go from bad to worse for Morey when the matter is investigated further. Morey claims on his bio that he has obtained a Ph.D. degree in “Islamic Studies”. The only problem? LBU does not offer any such degree. As the OC Weekly noted:
Morey also claims to have received a doctorate from Louisiana Baptist University. Two problems: LBU is unaccredited by the United States government, which means no serious academy would recognize it. Then there’s this: LBU doesn’t offer a Ph.D. in Islamic studies.
He says this “research” was done at the Library of Congress where he read every book they had available on Islam written in English. He fails to tell anyone how many books are available at the Library of Congress on Islam at the time of his “research” (documentation reveals there were close to 2000 books available yet Morey’s small book only lists 130 references in the bibliography, with many of these coming from standard reference works – including nonstandard reference works like the American Tract Society). Robert Morey also made the outrageous claim that he could read 20 to 25 books an hour!
Another Christian evangelist had to call out Dr. Robert Morey for not double-checking his reference and worse still not admitting to error when shown he was wrong. You can watch that here: Robert Morey
Robert Morey was thrown out by his own denomination.
Robert Morey, instead of spending time teaching and sharing the Gospel of Christ Jesus, was getting himself rich off his own congregation. It is regrettable that Christians continue to trust such men who claim to be protecting them from their so-called “enemies”. As the old saying goes: “Who will police the police?”
To give people a typical example of something that Morey’s people would be doing is the following:
“The Research and Education Foundation has done more groundbreaking research, written more materials, produced more tapes, and debated more Muslims than any other organization of its kind… …and now they’re asking for YOUR help in the FIGHT AGAINST RADICAL ISLAM! Dr. Morey needs to raise $1,212,000 to mount a NATIONAL CRUSADE to educate the public about radical Islam and its JIHAD against the American people. The REF needs to supply education books and audio & videotapes to be used on university campuses and in the Federal and State prison system, to launch a massive challenge to the elements of radical Islam in America:….”
Robert Morey is also the same person who advised the U.S government to ‘bomb Mecca and Madinah’. So much for Christian love!
So here good Christian people across America were paying good money to make sure that ‘America was safe from radical Islam’. But then came the questions…
Where are all these videos of him debating Shabir Ally, Jamal Badawi, and Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al Mansour? Where can we find the complete list? Why have the so-called honest Calvinist Christians hid the videos of him ‘exposing the Qur’an and Islam for the lies that they are?’
How come Morey’s own church was being neglected financially?
Where did Morey actually get his self-proclaimed academic credentials in Islam?
The above people link has people asking where did some of this money raised to fight ‘radical Islam’ go to anyway?
Ironically Larry Wessels wasn’t getting his cut of the “bash Islam get paid” type of money. So there was a falling out between Larry Wessels of www.muslimhope.com and Robert Morey. The man in the videos above exposing Robert Morey is either Larry Wessels or closely associated with Larry Wessels. It is ironic because these people are also closely associated with individuals that have dubious knowledge about Islam as well as fake “Ex-Muslim” converts. Will come to that shortly insh’Allah.
That is proof that Reformed Christian theology beliefs include that the elect can backslide into grievous sins, and can for a time continue in that respect, have hardened hearts and scandalize others. Again, that is their version of a real Christian.
Conclusions: We Muslims should pray for the Christians of Robert Morey’s former church. My sincere advice to them is this. If Robert Morey has been dishonest to you and to others about your finances and Anti-Christ like in his mannerisms and treatment towards you then you should also realize that it is highly likely that he was misleading you about Islam as well. Robert Morey has to be the most dishonest Christian to come from camp “TULIP”.
T= Totally depraved U=Utterly helpless in the face of real scholarship L=Limited knowledge of the facts I=Irresistible temptation to lie P=Poorly trained academia
Robert Morey has since died. Now he will stand before a Sovereign and Just God, May Allah have mercy on your soul Robert Morey! Next is Dr. Anis Shorrosh
Dr. Anis Shorrosh was perhaps the one the Christian evangelist had been waiting for. He was Arab (or so he claims) and he was born and raised as a Christian in Palestine (or so he claims).
There are some anomalies about Shorrosh. First, of all, his name is not an Arab name. It appears to be Persian actually. Possibly he is a descendant of Armenians or Persians who settled in Palestine. Secondly, for someone born in Nazareth (as he claims), as an Arab by birth (yet in his debate with Dr. Jamal Badawi) he struggled to recite the Qur’an properly and the manner of his speaking Arabic is not as a native-born person but someone who had learned the language much latter. Especially if he was born in 1933 and served as a Pastor and an Evangelist from 1959-1966 that would put him at age 33 before he left the Middle East. Certainly, he should have a strong command of the Arabic language.
For example, you can see Anis Shorrosh struggle to read a few simple lines of the Qur’an in Arabic here:
The brother made an excellent point. In this debate between Anis Shorrosh and Jamal Badawi, Shorrosh claimed that there were mistakes in the Arabic grammar of the Qur’an. He claimed that certain words should have been other words instead. So this is quite a tall order. Yet Shorrosh claims he is not a scholar of the Arabic language! So the speaker asked Shorrosh to read a few lines of the Qur’an in Arabic of which Jamal Badawi noted were no less than 4 big mistakes let alone his struggle to even read the text!
Shorrosh also uses bait and switch tactics during debates. Observe his trickery here.
That ended up costing him the debate with Shabir Ally, which Dr. Shabir exposed him for it. Shorrosh is part of a deceptive evangelical missionary project that is called “The True Furqan” or also known as “The 21st Century Qur’an”. It has been distributed in places like Kuwait in private English schools. It contains 77 surahs which include Al Fatiha, “Al Jana” and “Al Injeel” Instead of the standard Bismillah it is replaced with a longer version that incorporates the Christian belief of three spirits. (Shabir Ally exposes this and also teaches Dr. Shorrosh that he actually ends up promoting Sabellianism! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19a30uFvghI)
The 21st Century Quran opposes Islamic teachings by stating that having more than one wife is fornication (A teaching not even found in the Bible!), that divorce is not being permissible (poor Christians stuck in abusive marriages). This book is being targeted to children in English schools were often many upper-middle-class Muslim families send their children. Lastly, after all the deceit and bluster from Anis Shorrosh what sticks out most in our minds is his arrest for burning tax records and in the process almost setting his building on fire.
Now Christians were embarrassed by this and tried to say Shorrosh acted erratically after having a stroke and a heart attack and put a medication known as statins. Yet, this apologetic response meant to save face for one of their own doesn’t account for why Shorrosh tampered with security cameras and why of all the things he burned, he burned 20 years of tax returns. Sounds like his cognitive skills were working just fine to me.
Shorrosh has since died. May Allah (swt) have mercy on your soul!
One thing that Shorrosh certainly did was to tickle the minds and the dark hearts of many Evangelical Christians involved in polemics against Islam and Muslims. This can be seen in their repeated attempts to re-create Shorrosh or Shorrosh like characters. There was something appealing in an Arab Christian debating Muslims.
So these Christian think-tanks got together and their dark hearts and imaginations began to whisper. What if we could get an ex Muslim convert to Christianity who could expose Islam? Or even better than that, not just any ex Muslim, how about an Arab ex Muslim!!! Or even better how about an Arab ex Muslim from Saudi Arabia (gasp, the heartland of Islam!). It started to sound better and better. The case of “Ex Muslims” Ergun Caner and Emir Caner”.
Look at the darkness in this man’s eyes. This particular controversy really became heated in the Evangelical Christian world, bringing in such notable Christian apologists such as Norman Geisler. Battle lines were drawn up between Calvinist and Arminians and it was the beginning of the rift between James White and former protege Sam Shamoun. Listen to this Evangelist, this man who has been “saved by the blood of Jesus” tell bald-faced lies about Islam and Muslims.
Listen to him poor out lie after lie after lie…
Look at his claims that he knows the Arabic language here…
Ergun Caner was defended by Norman Geisler here:
Some more lies of Ergun Caner…If you want a complete catalog of videos exposing this mans lies and deceit I would highly suggest this YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/mokhan247/videos
Calling the saum (fasting) pronounced as Psalm as Swan (a species of bird) is also awful.
One of the most awful lies is his claim in the following video: ‘One of our leaders Shabir Ally ….the debater is often famous for saying before he died….’ …https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uZvMX68QPg alhamdulillah!
By the way that the brother was able to recover the YouTube videos. Because initially, these dishonest and hateful Christians tried to censor the truth!
Now watch this ‘expert’ on Islam give the Shahadah the testification of faith… He says it is “Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem Muhamdulillahir rahman ir raheem… WHAT!?!
Now if you of you people doubt that this is not the Shahadah here is a simple straight forward challenge to you. You can verify it in one of two ways. 1) You can go down to your local Masjid (Mosque) and simply ask one are the words a person has to say to become a Muslim.) You can go to youtube and type up people converting to Islam. You will see them say the following words:
“Ash Hadu An La Ilaha il law lah WA Ash Hadu Anna Muhammed ar Rasulullah”. (I bear witness that there is no God except God and I bear witness that Muhammed is the Messenger of God)
By the way, a “devout X Muslim” like Ergun Caner should have known the Shahadah. It is only said 9 times during the five obligatory prayers. Once in the morning prayer. Twice in the afternoon, mid-afternoon, sunset, and night prayers. That’s only for the obligatory prayers let alone the optional devotional prayers.
This mix up on his part is a huge blunder! Mohammed Khan makes a good point that Ergun Caner throws in the hard KH sound so you get KHaadeth, rather than hadeeth.
Also in Islam, the question ‘Who is Jesus’ is not a difficult question at all. Jesus is the word of God, Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus is the Messenger of Allah. Jesus was born of the virgin Mary.
Again Ergun Caner’s blatant ignorance of the teachings of Islam is manifest. He mentions that he has the courage to go in front of a Masjid (Mosque) and tell us all day long that Jesus is the Messiah. We would simply reply Ameen (Amin).
When the angels said: “O Mary! Allah gives you the good news of a Word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus (Esau) son of Mary (Mariam) who is illustrious in this world and the hereafter, and who is one of those brought near (to Allah).” (Qur’an 3:45)
What is so hard to answer?
Notice when he mentions about the Church that doesn’t exist anymore? He crosses his arms please also pay close attention to his eyes. Why do they look away after the soft chuckle?
If this is not devilish and arrogant I don’t know what is.
There are also ways to find out if that Church existed remember he said it was not far from a Mosque (Masjid).
What mosque is it that he said he attended? Umm Google map and yellow pages anyone???As you know already as well, the clever and crafty John Ankerberg has also moved to have the videos removed from YouTube?
Why? Why would John Ankerberg a man who has held open debates between various views and religions on his television program do this? Why? Simple $$$$
Which Christian was it that said everybody who bought the books above should come together sign a petition and demand a complete 100% refund for the garbage books they bought thinking that it was done by scholars and people who had great insight into the religion of Islam!
Where was Ergun Caner born? In Stockholm Sweden or in Istanbul Turkey?
Note that he mentions he was a ‘sand monkey’ How much sand is there in Turkey? Again google map anyone? Or simply ask Christian missionaries who have been in Turkey.
Again the pejorative term ‘sand monkey’ makes you wonder what his true feelings are about Black people in America? I mean the term ‘sand monkey’ is a derogatory term used to disparage Arabs.
So even if he is of Turkish ancestry it was a racist remark to make about Arabs.
Then watch the end of the clip where he comes and speaks Arabic to his Turkish father in excitement he says ‘Isa bin Allah’ (Jesus son of God) why would you speak Arabic to your Turkish father? But even more revealing and the part where is where he follows that up with his gibberish. He is making you people out to play the fool.
Christians wake up! You have missionaries that go to Turkey and Arab countries and speak Farsi, Turkish, and Arabic. How about you do the following: You get one of these people who speak Turkish, or Arabic to play this video in front of Ergun and ask him what he was saying.
Then it’s game over! Unless he was going to claim that he was speaking in tongues out of ecstasy which would not surprise me. However, I would have to say that Christian credibility seems to wear thin as the days go by why this man is running the show at Liberty University. I have sent e-mails to Muslims asking that we stop engaging in any inter-faith dialogues of debates with any representative of the SBC until Ergun Caner is brought to justice.
I also have friends in high places and I think that it’s possible you could see the SBC missionary activities cease completely in all areas of operation in every Muslim country across the globe. You can laugh if you want to but once it is shown that Christians will stoop to any level to bring “the truth” this will alarm Muslims who do allow Christians to preach in their countries openly and will show that the Christians are not people who play by the rules.
Would the SBC like the news of waking up one morning and finding there was a joint decision by 57 member states of the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) to halt all missionary activity? Not just the SBC because Christian indecision in the United States would reflect poorly upon Christians in general. I am sorry if you think it’s not fair. Welcome to my world where actions are done and taken by a few people in the name of Islam reflect poorly upon Muslims as a whole!
Did Ergun Caner Covert to Christianity in 1982? Did the brothers both convert in 1982 or did one of them convert a year prior?
Also the view that the Shi’a and the Sunni believe that the “Khalif” actually word should be Imam disappeared into ‘the caves’ is not factual. The belief in the Mahdi still alive and waiting to reappear is a belief held among the Shi’a but not among Sunni Muslims. Look at this book and look at the names on there. This book was quite a little cash cow for Ergun “FETHI” Caner and his brother Emir.
Only Allah (swt) knows what that young man was facing while growing up with someone as repulsive and vulgar as Ergun. Very heartbreaking indeed. Before he died Ergun’s son Braxton was posting pictures of him making out with girls and vulgar words.
We as Muslims should pray for Ergun Caner and his family. We pray that Allah (swt) removes the darkness from his heart and brings him into the light of a loving relationship with our Merciful Creator. May Allah (swt) make it easy on him and his family during this time of distress.
Next Is Hassamo Shamoun, Sam Shamoun.
He was a big part of the premier Christian apologetic website interacting with Islam and Muslims. answering-islam.org Shamoun’s stomping grounds was a social media platform called, “Paltalk”.
Paltalk would be used by Hassamo as a place where he could ‘field test’ his arguments. However, when he would come across knowledgeable Muslims, Sam would revert to screaming, yelling, and hurling all kinds of vulgar obscenities. It was clear that this was not a man who found peace but someone who was disturbed mentally.
These are just some of the small samples of Sam Shamoun interacting with other Christians (let alone Muslims) Hassamo loves to attack the character of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Ironically this distasteful attack on the Blessed Messenger (saw) marriage backfired on Hassamo “Sam” Shamoun when his wife divorced him. Not following the principles of God’s guidance Hassamo thought it was morally acceptable for his wife to be alone with a strange man in the house and so forth.
sam_shamoun_divorce_papers_due_to_long_abuse_to_his_wife Usually, most sensible people will do their level best to hide their character flaws. Not Hassamo he was an open book. He would crush, humiliate, destroy, vex, accost, assail, brutalize, assault, hurl abuse, and vitriolic all for the glory of Christ. His whole apologetics career was ended when the U.S court system stated:
Michelle requested that a two-year order of protection prohibited Sam from harassing, stalking, or physically abusing Michelle. Granting Michelle sole possession of the parties’ marital residence, and prohibiting Sam from entering the residence of Michelle’s place of employment.
Now what I find sad is that many Christians even after being aware of Hassamo’s vile behavior will come to his defense. Yet you have to keep in mind that Hassamo’s ex-wife Michelle is also a Christian.
So why take the testimony of a Sam Shamoun (who is clearly under the bondage of demons) over the testimony of his Christian wife? Not only that but it is a small world and there is much more than Michelle could have disclosed in regards to the very sick and disgusting behavior of Hassamo. What’s also interesting is that Sam Shamoun has burned so many bridges in the Christian community in the United States. As a person who believed in Reformed Theology, it certainly did not make him many friends across the aisle. Whereas James White has exposed Sam Shamoun’s courtship of Rome and Sam’s continuing march toward Roman Catholicism. That move makes sense for Sam Shamoun because his $$$ is drying up and Rome has plenty of $$$. Hassamo “Sam” Shamoun is attacking Protestants more and more particularly Calvinist and Reformed Theology. Sam recently admitted that for years he was worshiping a false god and inviting Muslims to believe in a false god, the ‘god of Calvinism’. Sam currently is gearing up for a conflict with Orthodox Christians (who cannot offer the same amount of cash infusion) that Roman Catholic Church can.
James White goes discusses this in the above video. Shamoun’s march towards Rome. The interesting thing is once Sam makes it official you have to wonder about all those evangelicals who cheered Sam on with his filthy language and vulgar methodology, will they support him when he crosses the Tiber river?
Conclusion: Muslims should pray for Hassamo Shamoun and his family. Pray that they can pick up the pieces of their lives and move forward. That Hassamo will find it in his heart to be a loving father to his two daughters and support them financially. That he will consider his vulgar speech that is all over the internet and hope that Allah will guide him not to speak like that anymore.
It is my hope that Sam Shamoun will one day find fulfillment and peace in loving willful submission to Allah (swt). However, and I say this not as an adversary but as someone genuinely concerned. I believe that he is in need of Ruqya. I can’t believe that any discerning Christian has not seen that the man is clearly in spiritual bondage. He constantly talks about others ‘manifesting’ which is the biggest projection ever. He often has weird body movements and jerks, which coupled with his vulgar language (towards Christians) let alone Muslims one can only imagine what ever entity resides him it certainly is not aligned to the light.
Next, we have David Wood.
David Wood is best known for being 1/2 of team ‘Atheist-Christ’. That is he teams up with an Atheist to attack Islam. This dynamic team of ‘Atheist -Christ’ has left many Christians puzzled. If Jesus is good enough for the Muslims why is he not good enough for his Atheist partner? David has his blog, ‘Answering Muslims’, and ‘Acts 17 apologetics’.
In the picture below he is wearing his wife’s gown (showing disrespect to his wife and not guarding her own privacy) while he was mocking Islam & Muslims.
Also, while doing this he blatantly ignored what God said stating the matter:
“A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.” (Deuteronomy 22:5)
I have often noticed when watching David Wood speak you can hear even until today the dry monotone in his speech. There is a lack of voice inflection. There is the twitching of the left eyebrow when he talks about uncomfortable subjects. So what has David Wood been up to lately?
David Wood has recently made a video with two ex Muslims. Can you imagine a Christian who hopes that Muslims hear the gospel of Christ shares a platform with two ex Muslims (Atheist) and does not spend anytime on the program sharing the gospel of Christ Jesus with them?! The only platform that brought those three together was HATRED for Islam. David Wood switched off evangelization mode and went into a complete debauched and depraved meltdown. See for yourself:
So this is what Christian apologetics has come to. David Wood in the video above suggests that he will create a domain name “pissonthequran.com”. Is this what Christianity is all about? You people keep telling the world that Islam is this and that and yet you go and make statements like this. No Muslim would ever even dare to make a website ‘pissonthebible.com”, only a perverse person who is in spiritual bondage would suggest things. That is the huge disadvantage that we Muslims have in debates with Christians. They can hurl all kinds of insults at the Blessed Prophet (saw), and yet we cannot say in kind about Christ Jesus (upon whom be peace) because he is a Prophet of Allah, he is the Messiah, and we believe in him. To lambaste Jesus or insult Jesus would take one out of Islam.
Another person doing the rounds is an individual by the name pseudonym of “Christian Prince”. I have listened to some of his “debates” with “Muslims” and they seem staged to me. Sure enough, my suspicion was confirmed. This “Christian Prince” was recently busted in a huge way when he lied about having a debate with a Muslim teacher, our beloved and kind brother Sabeel Ahmed. Mash’Allah Sabeel Ahmed has a beautiful disposition and a great deal of patience when outing this charlatan.
Mash’Allah Sabeel Ahmed has a beautiful disposition and a great deal of patience when outing this charlatan. This Anonymous “Christian Prince” has been called out to have a public moderated debate. Yet, he does not believe that God can protect him like he did here: “Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spoke, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire.” (Daniel 3:26)
Next is “Al Fadi”
This is the “Al Fadi” that you see pictured above going around the speaking circuit (much like Ergun Caner did). Now I am going to post his presentation of his testimony. (and if it gets deleted or removed) no worries because I have downloaded it.
So I have listened to the whole presentation. I have heard him say the word “MOZLUM” no less than 5 times in his presentation. Now there is absolutely no way on Earth that this guy is from Saudi Arabia and pronouncing ‘Muslim’ as ‘Mozlum’. He says @5:45 “Most my life in Saudi I memorized a book called the Qur’an.” “Half by age 12,” He says he went to an “Islamic University in Mecca” (doesn’t tell us the name of it). He went to study shariah to become a shariah scholar and judge later. He claims to have studied at the Local University pursuing an Engineering Degree at the U of A. Then he latter changed his major and went to ASU. He claims in the video that he was training to be a ‘jihadist’ (remember Ergun Caner gave the same story), and he (Al Fadi) was going to go to Afghanistan. Suddenly was abruptly stopped by his mother. What is interesting is that by his own modus oprendi has admitted that Allah (swt) is worth dying for and Jesus is not. Why do I say this? The fact that he uses a ‘pseudonym’. He uses a false name. T
o his credit and unlike (Christian Prince) at least he has given us a face. He hasn’t remained anonymous like “Abdul Saleeb” However, his name “Al Fadi” means the Redeemer. So that is obviously not his Muslim name.
This name is prevalent among Jordanian Christians in particular. Now, this is the new-look for “Al Fadi” So here we have “Al Fadi” going for the traditional Arab look (pictured left) and why not? The last person to try that was Dr. Anis Shorrosh pictured on the right. A live conversation with “Al Fadi” with someone talking to him a bit about his background would certainly yield some eye-opening inconsistencies.
Look at the end of the day both Muslims and Christians are convinced that one of us is upon the truth and the other is upon error. Yet, the number of Christians involved in Muslim and Islamic apologetics has been outed again and again for lies, deceit, deception, and a complete lack of concern for truth and transparency.
As I have said at the beginning of the article and I will say here again any Christian that encounters Islam one of three things happens:
a) Either they begin a serious study of Islam and end up seeing that Islam is a more cogent faith and world view than Christianity ever could be. They convert to Islam as I have.
b) They remain convinced of their own faith but develop a deep admiration and appreciation for Islam and Muslims (rather they admit it publicly or not)
c) Their hearts become diseased and their spiritual ailments are amplified and this becomes obvious in time. Greed, avarice, lust, anger, hate, racism begins to drip from their writings and public statements. Without fail repeatedly these people end up being humiliated publicly in this life. The hereafter is a painful and everlasting torment for them.
The truth is that many Christians are in spiritual bondage. Many of them have real trouble with marital fidelity, trouble erasing racism from their hearts, trouble with loving money, gambling, a predilection for the same sex, wrestling with drug addiction, and more. Many of them also find many Christian teachings problematic. chief of the more practical ones is the issue surrounding divorce. Many of them find are uncertain of their salvation and many of them who take time to seriously study Christian concepts of the Creator realize that it is not cogent at all.
What else explains the reason they feel they have to cheat and lie about Islam and Muslims? Why do they have to lie to their own congregations and people of their own denomination? Why do they need to use these types of tactics if they are certain of their beliefs?
It is my hope that this article will reach those people who have been lied to and duped by Christian missionary deceit. That you will take time to go to a Mosque yourself. That you will read the Qur’an yourself. That you will sit with learned Muslims and ask them about the questions that you have in your heart and mind.
“They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it.” (Qur’an 61:8)
“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized as the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.” (Qur’an 5:83)
“It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the world view that is based on the truth to manifest it over all other world views, although they who rely upon other than or associate partners with Allah dislike it.” (Qur’an 9:33)
﷽
Ali Erbaş Turkish Islamic scholar and President of Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) in Turkey says Jesus is dead and will not return. He also has stated that there is no Mahdi that will come. This is quite a huge deal because Ali Erbas is in essence the Mufti of Turkey.
These positions (especially concerning the Mahdi) are part of a de-shificiation process we see happening among Sunni Muslims.
It is interesting that more and more learned scholars around the round are coming to the Ibadi school’s position on these points. I wonder how many more actually hold such views but are not so bold as to proclaim them for fear of reprisal?
In the comment section you see threats, emotions and not proofs and evidences.
Here we look at the verse in the Qur’an 43:61 often quoted and used to affirm the second coming Jesus (as).
The following examines the word ‘tawaffa’ Yet, the Qur’an itself offers no cause for confusion. Tawaffā appears in twenty-five passages in the Qur’an, and twice in relation to Christ Jesus (Q 5:117 and Q 3.55).
For twenty-three of those passages the Muslim commentators generally follow the standard definition of this term, that is that Allah (swt) separates the soul from the body or makes someone die.
Think about this Muslim brothers and sisters. For those passages that are not tied into ahadith about Jesus(as) coming back they are translated and understood as per usual.
What about all those hadith that speak about some second coming of Jesus? Aren’t they tawatur?
Al Ma’rij Imam Abu Muhammed Abdulllah Al- Salimi (r) Volume 1. It is actually is a fiqh book. Many times in our school when our scholars write a book about fiqh they will start with a short section on aqidah.
The coming of Isa Ibn Maryam 1) There is no Prophet after Muhammed (saw). 2) That which is narrated from the people (Ahl Sunnah) about Jesus (as) coming back it is not sound. 3) Even if it was sound, the time of Isa Ibn Maryam has already passed. 4) Same have said that Khidr and Elias (as) they are still alive then their status would be like angels. Their live would be veiled from the seen world. They would not eating drinking indulging. These things are not correct with our school. 5) If he comes he will come in the Shari’a of the Prophet (saw), which Ahl Sunnah has conceded. They have conceded he cannot come back as a prophet.
Source: (The Ascents of Hope in the Stages of Perfection, in the Introductions by Imam Abu Muhammed Abdullah Al-Salimi -may Allah have mercy on him)
“While Allah created you and that which you do?” (Qur’an 37:96)
“That is Allah—your Lord! There is no god except Him. The Creator of all things, so worship Him . And He is the Maintainer of everything.” (Qur’an 6:102)
“Say, “Who is Lord of the heavens and earth?” Say, ” Allah.” Say, “Have you then taken besides Him allies not possessing even for themselves any benefit or any harm?” Say, “Is the blind equivalent to the seeing? Or is darkness equivalent to light? Or have they attributed to Allah partners who created like His creation so that the creation of each seemed similar to them?” Say, ” Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the One, the Prevailing.” (Qur’an 13:16)
“It was not you who killed them, but it was Allah Who did so. Nor was it you who threw , but it was Allah Who did so, rendering the believers a great favour. Surely Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.” (Qur’an 8:17)
﷽
This view of the Ibadi school is believed to be borrowed by the Ash’ari; meaning they have adopted the view after it was firmly rooted among the Ahl al-Haqq wa-l istiqama (The People of Truth and Straightness).
Or have they attributed to Allah partners who created like His creation so that the creation of each seemed similar to them?” Say, ” Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the One, the Prevailing.” (Qur’an 13:16)
The above verse shows that the Mu’tazila have a belief in a multitude of beings that are creators. They also open themselves and their adherents why these low level and ultimately silly Christian polemic catch them flat footed.
But those grounded in strong theology are amused at these feeble attempts by Christian polemics.
In fact, our theology solves real dilemma that are faced by the Christian tradition that have given them the unfortunate choices of Calvinism that God creates the evil and wills the person to do the evil and God chooses the evil for the person to act upon. Calvinism removes the free will of human beings.
Than there is the choice of Molinism which is that the truth values of subjective conditionals of human freedom is Not under God’s control. It is something imposed upon God, but from who or where? Not only this but it is absolutely unnecessary for an all-knowing Creator to have ‘middle knowledge’. Lastly, it gives human beings the ability to resist the decree of God.
These are the messy theological conundrums that the Christians find themselves in.
Allah (swt) creates all things.
Human beings acquire the actions and are responsible for their choice and consequence of the acquisition.
“Allah does not charge a soul except with that within its capacity. It will have the consequence of what good it has earned, and it will bear the consequence of what evil it has earned. “Our Lord, do not impose blame upon us if we have forgotten or erred. Our Lord, and lay not upon us a burden like that which You laid upon those before us. Our Lord, and burden us not with that which we have no ability to bear. And pardon us; and forgive us; and have mercy upon us. You are our protector, so give us victory over the disbelieving people.” (Qur’an 2:286)
(kasabat wa’alaya ma ik’tasabat)
Man Wills -Allah creates his actions. Man freely chooses and acquires the actions that Allah (swt) creates.
The following is from Shaykh Abd al-‘Aziz al-Thamini al-Mus‘abi on God’s Power and Human Acts, from Kitab Ma‘alim al-Din translated into English via Professor Valerie Hoffman.
Kitab Ma’alim al-Din is a basic book on Aqida that would be taught as an introduction to the subject matter.
Demonstrating That God Creates Human Acts
If you understand the preceding concerning the necessity of the absolute oneness of God Most High, you will know that one may use the proof of mutual prevention (dalil al-tamanu‘) to demonstrate that the Most High is the one who brings human acts (af‘al al-‘ibad) into existence, without any effect from human power on them. Rather, [human power] comes into existence only at the moment of [the act for which it is created]. This is in opposition to the Mu‘tazila, in their claim that human power is what produces (hiya ’l-mu’aththira fi ) the acts according to their choice, and that the eternal power (al-qudra ’l-qadima) has no effect at all on those voluntary acts, and neither does it flow according to the will of God Most High.
The way to prove [that God creates human acts] is the proof that a multiplicity of gods necessarily implies the affirmation of God’s impotence when His will is not implemented—which is exactly what the teaching of the Mu‘tazila entails, for they have said that the attachment of human power and will to the act prevents the attachment of the power and will of God Most High to that act, although that act is one of the possible things that have been conclusively proven to be necessarily attached to the power and will of God Most High, through a general attribution of [His power and will] to all [possible things]. This act, therefore, is subject to both human power and will and the power and will of our Lord, because of what you know of the generality of the attachment of God’s power and will.
The Qadariyya claimed that what produced and influenced human acts and inhered in them is the weaker of the two powers and more feeble of the two wills, human power and will. This despicable doctrine is nothing other than an affirmation that the Most High has a partner in [the act] and that the Most High should, on the contrary, be described as impotent and overpowered by another. For this reason, the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, called them the Magians of this umma (al-Rabi‘ b. Habib n.d., 3:10; Abu Dawud 2000, Kitab al-sunna [41], bab 17, no. 4693), for what their teaching requires is not considered a [genuine Islamic] doctrine. Since it is a defamation of His divinity and an affirmation of His deficiency and of the nonexistence of His essence to assert that God is made impotent through the effective power of the will of another god, how could the effective power and will of a human being make Him impotent? They are not helped by their response, which is that it is not necessary that the Most High have no power over an act produced by a human being, because the Most High is capable of bringing it into existence by stripping the person of power over it and of will for it, and by making it an act of coercion, like the act a person who is shivering, because we say that it is absolutely impossible for God to be overpowered or unable to bring any possible thing into existence. This answer of theirs requires that the Most High be unable to bring the act of the person into existence, unless the person is stripped of power and will. So, according to them, that possible act is beyond His power and He is unable to bring it into existence, and He is overpowered by the power and will of the person, although their aforementioned answer does not accord with their corrupt principle that God must do what is good and best, because it is impossible for Him to strip the person of the power He created for him after making him accountable; indeed, He must help him by making [good] acts easy for him.
If you understand this, you know that the correct teaching is that of the majority (al-jumhur), and is indicated by the obvious meaning of the Book and Sunna, and was agreed upon by the early Muslims (al-salaf) before the appearance of heresies: that God is the Creator and all else is created, that the Most High has no partner in His dominion, and that having an effect on things and the power to bring things into existence are His characteristics and cannot be affirmed of anything else. It is reported that al-Juwayni said that originated [human] power does affect acts, but not independently [of divine power], as the Mu‘tazila said; rather, human power affects acts according to the measure determined by God Most High and in the manner He intended.
Al-Baqillani and al-Isfarayini also said that human power affects the particular quality of the act, but does not bring it into existence, although al-Baqillani said that it is a particular quality, whereas al-Isfarayini, who denied the modes (al-ahwal), said that the particular quality is only an aspect and expression. Some of the Ash‘arites chose the teaching of al-Baqillani and distinguished between the aspects of production (ikhtira‘) and acquisition (kasb), in that the movement, as a movement, is attributed to the act of God Most High in terms of its production and being brought into existence. This requires that He know it in all its aspects, and that the movement not act upon the essence of the Most High, nor is He described by it in the sense that it subsists in Him; nor can one say that He moves by it because He brought it into existence and produced it.
The act is attributed to the human being in terms of its particular qualities, such as prayer, for example, or illegal seizure or theft or adultery, and human power has no effect except in that aspect; there is no stipulation that the person know all aspects of the act. His body is the locus of the act and of his acquisition of it, and the act is attributed to him, so it is said that he is moving or at rest or praying or illegally seizing or stealing or committing adultery, and so forth. If a command is attached to it and the act accords with it, it is called an act of obedience and of worship. If a prohibition attaches to it and the act opposes it, it is called an act of disobedience and a crime. That is the aspect concerning which the person is commanded through words that are addressed to him, ordering him to pray and fast and not to commit illegal seizure or theft , and it [is this aspect] that makes an act worthy of reward, punishment, praise, or blame. However, concerning its coming into existence, there is no difference between voluntary and involuntary acts.
Nonexistence, as has been explained; existence, according to them, is added to the essence, which is shared by each mode and is an intermediary between existence and nonexistence. So the one who does an act does nothing concerning things except bring it into existence, which is a mode concerning which there is no intelligible distinction according to the difference of realities. Command and prohibition do not attach to a specific mode, but to particular characteristics and expressions. Acts are either good or bad according to these characteristics, and these entail praise or blame.
According to them, acts that are commanded or prohibited are not determined for a person; what is determined for a person are things for which there is no human accountability. In this way they differ from the teaching of al-Baqillani, whose opinion meets the demands of both reason and revelation, as indeed do the opinions of all three of them, although what al- Juwayni reports concerning the teaching of al-Baqillani and al-Isfarayini drift s into the teaching of the Mu‘tazila, but without going so far as their heinous belief or [on the other extreme] so far as requiring people to do what is impossible for them, with the assessment that human power has no effect on anything at all, as the majority say, whereas the Mu‘tazila say to us that the outcome of obligation according to this estimation is “Act, you who have no act: do what I am doing,” although that is weak.
What al-Baqillani and his companions rely on in attributing all possible things to God Most High is their possibility; the particular characteristic of one is no better than another [in this regard]. This is an extension of what they attributed to the human being, for this aspect is either possible or not. If it is possible, it must be linked to His power. If it is not possible, its attribution to any power is impossible. The compulsion from which they fled is forced upon them, because in that case one cannot imagine an intention to bring it into existence in view of its impossibility (‘ala hiyaliha), so the act is not produced from the person as long as God Most High has not done the act in that body (dhat). On the other hand, when He does the act in that body, one cannot imagine the person abandoning it, as they claim. So compulsion is forced upon them. Al-Isfarayini is forced into this even more, because he says that this aspect is just an expression in the mind, so how can one intend to do something that has no objective existence (wujud fi ’l-kharij)?
In sum, there are five opinions on this question: (1) that of the majority, which is that human power has no effect at all, and comes into existence only at the time of the act; (2) that of al-Juwayni; (3) that of al-Baqillani and his followers; (4) that of the Compulsionists (al-Mujbira or al-Jabriyya), who deny that the human being has any choice concerning his acts; and (5) that of the Mu‘tazila.
Note: Our companions say that a [voluntary act] does not issue from a person unless these five conditions are met: (1) God wills it and creates it for him; (2) human power to act occurs at the time of the act, not before it or after it; (3) the person wills it and acquires it; (4) God helps (i‘ana) him to do it if it is an act of obedience; (5) God abandons him to it if it is an act of disobedience. More investigation of this follows.
on what is possible concerning the most high
[By “possible,”] I mean what is neither necessary nor impossible, but is possible for Him. This chapter is divided into sections.
The Doctrine of Acquisition
A person who is subject to the law must believe that God the Glorious created human beings (al-‘ibad) and created their acts and created reward and punishment for these acts, and that they acquire (iktasabu) their acts and do them, and are not compelled or forced to do them. There is disagreement concerning the definition of an act, insofar as it is [their] act. The best definition of it, according to the principle of our companions and those who agree with them on this, is that it is an accident 1(see note) brought into being at the same time as the capacity (istita‘a) to do it. This matter is referred to as “acquisition” (kasb), which is one of the obscure topics of study in theology (min ghawamid mabahith ‘ilm al-kalam). The truth is that a person does not create his [or her] own acts, but merely acquires them by the necessity of the attachment of accountability to them (darurat ta‘alluq al-taklif bi-ha). We know by demonstration (bi-’l-burhan) that there is no creator but God Most High, and we know of necessity that power that is originated for a person (al-qudra ’l-haditha li-’l-‘abd) attaches to some of his deeds, such as getting up, but not others, such as falling. The effect of the originated power is called “acquisition.”
In the philosophical sense of something that is nonessential, transitory, and changeable
Although we cannot completely understand it, it is said that a person’s acquisition of an act occurs at the same time as his power and will, without his affecting anything or bringing anything into existence; he is merely the locus (mahall) for the act.
Acquisition does not make necessary the existence of the act for which a person is given power, although it does necessitate the ascription of the act to the person doing it. Because of this ascription, the person is variably described according to the deed: good if it is an act of obedience and bad if it is an act of disobedience, because a bad deed done intentionally and willfully is bad, unlike the creation of evil, which does not negate a praiseworthy benefit; indeed it may be both, because it is established that the Creator is wise and that He does not create things without a praiseworthy outcome, although we may not understand it. So anyone who imagines that the Most High does evil must understand that there may be wisdom and good in His creating them, just as there is in the creation of ugly, harmful or painful bodies—unlike the acquirer, who may do good or evil. Therefore we say that the acquisition of evil after its prohibition is evil, foolish, and deserving of blame and punishment.
One cannot say, “The Most High’s independence in creating acts is proven, and a single object of power cannot come under two different powers, as is necessary by your assertion that the act is both created by God and acquired by the person who does it,” because we say that since it has been demonstrated that the creator of the act is God, and it is necessary that the power and will of the person enter into some acts, such as the movement of anger, but not others, such as shivering, we need to avoid this difficulty by saying that God Most High creates the act and the person acquires it. It has been established that the application of a person’s power and will to an act is limited to acquisition and that God, as the one who brings the act into being, is its creator. Therefore, a single object of power (almaqdur al-wahid) is subject to two different powers from two diferent aspects; it is subject to human power from the aspect of acquisition. This determination of meaning is necessary, although we cannot say more than to summarize by saying that human acts are created and brought into being by God at the same time as human power and choice. We may distinguish between acquisition and creation by saying that acquisition occurs with an instrument, and creation occurs without an instrument.
Those who say humans are compelled to act say that humans have absolutely no choice concerning what they do; rather, they are compelled to do them and are an instrument for them, just as a knife is an instrument for cutting and a tree is an instrument for wind—rather, like a string attached to the air, twisted by the wind to the right and then to the left , powerless to oppose or resist it. According to them, animals are like inanimate things in relation to their acts and have no power over them, either to produce them or to acquire them. The fallacy of this argument is obvious, for we necessarily judge that we choose some of our acts, such as extending our hand to take something, and are compelled toward others, such as shivering. They are compelled to hold that human beings are not accountable for anything they do, and that it is literally and legally inappropriate to ask them to do something or to prohibit it or praise or blame or reproach them for doing it, and that there should be no surprise over their disbelief, as expressed by “How can you disbelieve in God?” (Qur’an 2:28). All this is false, by the consensus of the monotheists.
One cannot say, “You must believe in compulsion, since you do not assign to human beings any effect in their acts,” because we say that the compulsion of which one should beware is what we can sense (hissi). The compulsion that we understand with our intellect, on the other hand, is the removal of [the attribution of] creation from human beings, for all [Muslim] sects agree on this—indeed, that is faith itself. Just as whatever God Most High wills to occur from a person necessarily occurs through his choice, the necessity of its occurrence through choice is inevitably actualized because of that choice, a truth that no one denies.
Note: Some say that the meaning of choice is that when it occurs to a person to do something and he hesitates to do it and abandons it, there arises from his hesitation an inclination toward preferring one alternative over the other. This inclination is called “will,” and the preference is called “choice.” If he suddenly tries to do something and prefers it, the One who brings it from nonexistence into existence is God, who is glorified and exalted.
Human Power Comes into Being with Its Act
Know that we only speak of a power belonging to a human being at the time of the act that is its object because of the necessary distinction you find between the movements of coercion (idtirar) and of acquisition. Th is characteristic (hukm), which is conjunction, is not permanent insofar as it is a power, but rather insofar as it is an accident (‘arad). One of the characteristics of accidents is that they pass into nonexistence after the time of their existence, and it is usually (fi ’l-akthar) impossible for them to remain beyond that time in order to exist in another, as has been explained earlier. If the impossibility of their remaining is established, it is clear that originated power cannot exist before [the act for which it is created], because if it existed before the act, it would have to pass into nonexistence at the time that the act that is its object comes into existence, in which case it would come into existence through a nonexistent power, which is impossible. To affirm that means that if the power is nonexistent, the existence of its opposite, impotence, is possible, in which case the act would be subject to a person’s power at a moment when he is impotent, which would mean that he is unable to do it. So something would happen that at the time of its occurrence is the result of an impotent power, which is impossible.
One of their scholars who has reflected on the impossibility of the existence of power to act before the act said that if this is taken only with respect to the impossibility of the endurance of accidents, then the power is not really a cause of the act’s coming into existence, nor does it affect it. If it does not bring the empowered act into existence, it is possible for it to exist before the act that it is empowered to do, then pass into nonexistence, and then a similar power could come into existence. In that case, the power that comes into existence at that time is attached to the act, and the power that existed before the act is [also] attached, so one could say that this power was attached to the act before it passed into nonexistence and ceased to exist, and its attachment to it ceased to exist, and a similar power came into existence.
It is as if someone knew by true information that Zayd would come into existence tomorrow at sunrise, for example. Then we could renew his knowledge that this would happen at the known time, until its occurrence at the time he was told it would occur. So the [knowledge] that comes into existence at that point, attaching to the previous existence [of knowledge], attaches to Zayd’s coming into existence at the specified time. So the object of knowledge is attached to both of them, one earlier and one later. If it were possible for something that is the opposite of knowledge to occur at the time that an object of knowledge comes into existence, such as bewilderment, neglect, ignorance or doubt, then, at the time that the object of knowledge came into existence, it would be unknown by knowledge that occurs at the same time, although it attaches to the knowledge that existed before the object of knowledge came into existence. So a consideration of its lack of attachment to the one who knew of it beforehand at the time it comes into existence enables us to understand that an empowered act is not attached to a preexistent power at the time that it comes into existence.
This does not prevent its preexistence, especially since we have said that [the power] does not affect [the empowered act], but merely attaches to the empowered act, without producing an effect on it. Since we say that knowledge can attach to an object of knowledge before it comes into existence, what is to prevent power from attaching to an empowered act before the act? A person can sense in himself, before he does something, the difference between his act of shivering and something he does when he is healthy. That is simply because he finds an essential attribute attached to the act before it occurs, and then similar powers are renewed until the time the empowered act comes into existence.
Proof for the assertion (ithbat) of originated power is that we can imagine two movements going (mutajarradatayn) in the same direction (jiha) and having similar force (jabr), but one of them is coerced (idtirariyya) and the other is acquired (iktisabiyya). There is no doubt that we find a necessary distinction between the two movements, but this distinction cannot be due to a difference in the movements themselves, because they resemble each other and belong to the same person who is doing these movements; what can be discerned concerning both is the same. So the distinction must be due to an additional attribute in the mover. It cannot be due to a mode (hal), because a mode cannot be examined by itself in a substance, as modes cannot be discerned by themselves, but would have to be distinguished by another mode subsisting in it, and that by another mode, and so on, which would result in an infinite series. The distinction [between the two movements] cannot be due to the soundness of the construction [of the body of the mover] because that is not [necessarily] lost in a coerced movement, for example, if someone else is moving the person’s hand, despite the distinction, in which case the attribute would be an accident. Furthermore, this attribute must be something that either requires life or does not. The second [alternative] is wrong, because it would have no attachment to movement, and because it is shared between two things, so it is not the basis of the distinction between the two movements. So it must be the first, something that carries this stipulation.
This [attribute] cannot be knowledge or life or speech, because all of these exist with both movements in the case of bewilderment. So it must be an accident with a relation and attachment to the movement. This is what we call “power.” Although we and the Mu‘tazila disagree concerning whether it is one of the attributes that exist from the start, we agree that it is one of the attributes that have attachments (annaha min al-sifat al-muta‘allaqa).
Accountability Attaches to Acquisition
What is meant by “acquisition” is nothing but the attachment of this originated power in the locus of the empowered act, at the same time as the act, without producing any effect. Acquisition is the attachment of legal accountability and entails the attainment of reward and punishment. So the teaching of the Compulsionists (al-Jabriyya), is wrong, because compulsion implies necessity and the nullification of the locus of accountability and the aforementioned entailment [of reward and punishment]. For this reason, it is a heresy (bid‘a) that impacts the contract (‘aqd) of faith.
The teaching of the Mu‘tazila is also wrong, which is that a person produces (yakhtari‘u) his own acts according to his will by the power that God Most High created (khalaqa) for him by the enabling He has given him (bi-wasitat iqdarihi la-hu). They agree with us that it is created by the Most High, because if it were created [by the person] that would entail an infinite series [of creators], and the falsity of that has already been explained in the proof of God’s oneness and the impossibility of His having a partner.
Note: The later Mu‘tazila, however, did say that humans create their own acts
The doctrine of acquisition occupies a position between those two corrupt teachings. The attachment of accountability, meaning that the empowered act comes into existence with the originated power, is required by the law in the matters for which the human being is held accountable, because in the case of an empowered act without human power, like the movement of shivering, for example, our glorified Lord graciously removes accountability from us, whether negatively by prohibiting it or positively by commanding it. A person who falls from a high place cannot be prohibited from falling at the time that this occurs, though someone may wish this of him by telling him, “Don’t fall on it.” Nor can he be commanded to fall by telling him, “Fall on it.” Likewise, the person who shivers can neither be commanded to do that movement nor prohibited from it, although if the Glorious One reversed accountability or made everyone accountable, that would [still] be good, because the power of the accountable person has no effect on anything, but the Most High in His wisdom deemed what is fixed by the law to be most appropriate, as has been explained.
Note: According to this theological perspective, anything God does is good, because goodness is defined by what God does, not by human judgment of what is good. So even if God commanded what we perceive to be evil and prohibited what we perceive to be good, or if He made people accountable regardless of their ability to obey His commands, that would still be good. God is therefore gracious when He removes accountability for things over which we have no power.
In sum, these acts that are created by God Most High have legal implications (nasabaha ’l-shar‘) when they come close (‘inda iqtirabiha) to originated accidents like power and will, entailing the attainment of reward and punishment or something else, meaning whatever reward has been set for it, according to whether, with the intention of obedience, one has done something obligatory or recommended, or not done something that is prohibited or reprehensible, and punishment for doing something that is prohibited or failing to do what is obligatory, or the absence of reward and punishment for doing something that is permitted or reprehensible or for failing to do something that is recommended or for failing to do something that is reprehensible, without the intention of obedience. What we asserted earlier does not negate this, because it is an example that need not be restricted, and because the abandonment of obligatory duties is categorized as prohibited and the abandonment of recommended acts is categorized as reprehensible.
Judgment concerning individual felicity and misery [in the afterlife] exists from all eternity without any cause for it except that God Most High does what He likes and judges as He wills. The outcome of the teaching of the Compulsionists (al-Mujbira), which results in stupidity and weakness of intellect, goes against the Shari‘a, because it removes accountability for acts for which there is usually no possible alternative (didd), whether through existence or nonexistence. Accountability usually exists for what is easy for a person to do or not to do. What a person does has no definable effect on anything, contrary to the claim of the Mu‘tazila.
There is no distinction between acts for which the law makes people accountable and those for which it does not make people accountable, except the presence or absence of acquisition. If all acts were equal, as the Compulsionists say, the legal distinction between them would be nullified, and accountability for doing them would also be nullified—that is, for an act that is within the capacity of the accountable person, not any other act. In that case, no acts would ordinarily be within human capacity, so there would be no accountability for anything, because of the words of the Most High, “God does not place an obligation on a soul that is beyond its capacity” (Qur’an 2:286). Their teaching nullifies the Book of God, the Sunna of the Prophet, and the consensus [of the umma].
Human Power Cannot Nullify God’s Power
There are two other pitfalls in the doctrine of the Mu‘tazila, in addition to the previously mentioned proof of the impossibility of the impotence of the eternal power. One of these is that it requires that a possible thing be impossible. The second is that it gives more weight to that which has less (tarjih al-marjuh),(see note) which is obvious from their aforementioned arguments. Concerning the first, it is said that a human act is possible before the power is created for it, and every possible thing is subject to the power of God Most High. The result is obvious: if He creates a power for a person, the Mu‘tazila say that at that point the possibility that the act could come into existence by the power of God Most High ceases by what He has established for the person, and it becomes impossible for it to come into existence by [God’s power]. So what was possible with respect to the power of the Most High has become impossible with respect to it. One cannot say that [the empowerment of] an accident is impossible for Him due to a cause, namely the attachment of originated power to it, or that it is impossible for a single act to be brought into existence through two different powers.
Note: This is because the Mu‘tazila say that human power (which has less weight) over an act means that God’s power (which has more weight) does not affect the act, so what has less weight predominates over what has more.
The impossibility of something with regard to an accident does not affect its possibility with regard to the essence, because we say that there is no good reason for it to be impossible. Their allegation requires that the impossibility apply to the essence, because the originated power that they see as impeding the attachment of the eternal power to the act cannot impede it; rather, what is correct, according to both reason and revelation (‘aqlan wa-naqlan), is the reverse. They say: It remains possible concerning the act of a person that he could be stripped of the power to do it. We say: In that case, the act cannot be due to human power. Furthermore, according to your principle of [God’s] obligation to do what is best, stripping a person [of power to do an act] would not be possible after a person has been ordered to do it.
They say: If a person’s power has no effect on his act, he cannot be rewarded or punished for doing it. It is known that the latter is false, so therefore so is the former. Their interdependence is proven by the fact that if the act is not an effect of his power, there would be no difference between him and his body and all other bodies in the world, (see note) and if his accidents were joined together, their union would have no effect on him. Just as there would be no reward or punishment for this act, because he has no effect on any aspect of it, likewise there would necessarily be no reward or punishment for any of his acts, because he has no effect on any aspect of them.
Note: That is, a person’s relationship to his own acts would be no different from the relationship of any other person or thing to his acts.
We say: Their interdependence is prevented by acquisition, which is sufficient for a person to attain reward and punishment for his act, and what you say does not make acquisition of the act impossible.
They say: How can a person be praised or blamed for what he does not do? In that case, people could have a basis for making a plea in the afterlife, and God Most High has said, “So the people may have no plea against God [for punishing them] after the Messengers [had warned them]” (Qur’an 4:165). We say: This concerns the first type [of act], and that results from his acquisition of it. They are also obligated by what we already said of their teaching, namely that they say that originated power has an effect on voluntary acts, although they agree with us that the Most High is the creator of that power and is the one who calls it into being by creating desire in the person and the power to decide to do it, and other such causes of the act.
If the causes of its existence are from the Most High, and with these causes the act becomes necessary and unavoidable, then the person is forced to do the act; God has forced him and made him do it by creating for him all the causes and things on which it depends, so that, given the existence of these causes, the person has no way to avoid doing the act. In addition, the Glorified One knows what act of obedience or disobedience the person is doing, so the disobedient person would also have a plea [before God] according to their principle [that God must do what is best for His creatures], by saying, “Lord, why did You create desire in me? Indeed, why did You create me, since You knew that I am not one of those who are able to obey You? And since You did create me, why didn’t You cause me to die when I was little, before I reached the age of accountability? And since you did cause me to reach it, why didn’t you make me insane, not a commander of the earth from heaven, for that would be easier for me than enduring torture [in hellfire]. And since You made me rational, why did You make me accountable, when You knew that accountability would not benefit me in any way? Indeed, it is more disastrous for me than anything else!”
Fakhr [al-Din al-Razi] said, “One of the most clever of the Mu‘tazila said, ‘These two questions are the enemies of our school. Were it not for them, we would hold the place of honor [among theologians] comparable to the rank of chess among games.’” What he means is that the answers to these two questions would solve all the problems introduced by the Mu‘tazila. The answers come from two directions: first, that God Most High knows that whatever He brings into existence must occur, and that whatever He will not bring into existence cannot occur; second, no preponderance of impetus exists that prevents an act (lam yujad rujhan al-da‘i imtana‘ al-fi ‘l); if that were necessary, a problem would arise against them on these two issues.
Th is is what Imam Suhar al-‘Abdi meant when he said, “They should be asked about [God’s] knowledge [of what people will do], for if they affirm it, they also affirm [His] creation [of their acts],”(see note) referring to His words “God knows all things” (Qur’an 2:282) and “God is the creator of all things” (Qur’an 13:16), “for they are two general questions concerning their attachment to human acts.
Note: At least one of the earliest Muslim groups identified by the heresiographers as upholding human power over their own acts, the Shabibiyya, allegedly felt that God’s knowledge of what people will do would remove their free will, so they felt compelled to say that God does not know what people will do. Most of the Qadariyya and Mu‘tazila, however, denied this linkage between God’s knowledge and His power.
Neither of them has anything to distinguish it from the other in this regard, for if you say this, and that whatever God knows He will not bring into existence cannot occur, that goes against your teaching, and your companions will disagree that God has knowledge of a possible thing that will not occur, so what about something that is innately impossible (fa-ma zannuka bi-’l-mumtani‘ al-wuqu‘)?” We have already answered this question concerning the attachment of [God’s] knowledge [to human acts]. By what is innately impossible, he is speaking comprehensively (ma huwa shamil) concerning that possible thing.
Note: Know that when the Glorified and Exalted One habitually gives a person the desire [to do something], followed by the power [to do it], so that he does not feel that he is forced to do the act that comes to him, no matter how determined (mahma sammama ‘azmahu) the person may be to do the act, God the Glorified helps him by creating it and creating the power to do it, whether it be an act of obedience or disobedience, as the Most High said: “Whoever desires this fleeting life shall soon receive in it whatever We will; We bestow Our gifts on whomever We please. But then We have prepared hell for him, where he will burn, disgraced and rejected” (Qur’an 17:18). He also said, “We bestow the bounty of your Lord on all—on these and those” (Qur’an 17:20). Th is bestowal (imdad) is arranged according to their desire, if He wills, and that bestowal is called help (‘awn) and abandonment (khidhlan). So if you say that you interpret abandonment as a failure to help, in what sense is this a bestowal?
I say it means that when the Glorified One does not help a person, but lets him have what is ruinous to his soul while creating that in him, He has bestowed on him [the state implied by the Prophet’s prayer,] “God of majesty and generosity, do not leave us to ourselves (la takilna ‘ala anfusina) for an instant (tarfat ‘ayn)” (cf. Abu Dawud 2000, Kitab al-adab [42], bab 110, no. 5092) and by that bestowal the person appears to bring his act into existence, so fantasy and imagination have no doubt about that. Many have entered into that [fantasy and imagination], and were it not for the fact that God, by His grace and generosity, has supported the minds of the believers and torn away the veils of fantasies that darken the mind and exposed them to the suns of knowledge by which they understood the truth of the matter, they would be like others. Therefore, some of them have interpreted the meaning of acquisition as the attachment of reward and punishment to a deed, in esteem, law, custom and intellect, and for this reason it is appropriate for a person be praised or blamed for his acts. But if we look to the inner meaning, as has been stated, and to the truth of the matter, it is not correct to make his act a rational cause of something. The Qur’an and the Sunna sometimes refer to human acts in the manner of “Enter the Garden because of what you have done” (Qur’an 16:32), and sometimes in the manner of “None of you will enter the Garden because of what he does.”
Because one can find texts coming down on both sides of the issue, and in consideration of the obscurity of what is meant by acquisition, it is said that the scope of human volition (al-jaza’ al-ikhtiyari) is narrower (adaqq) than a hair in the thought of al-Ash‘ari. Our shaykh (may God love him greatly!) said, “What is affirmed for us in this matter is that we attribute to God Most High what He has attributed to Himself, namely creation, and to the human being what He attributed to him, namely acquisition. We refrain from describing that acquisition in such a way that would lead to a doctrine of compulsion, because of the words [of the Prophet], peace and blessings be upon him, from our glorified and exalted Lord: ‘Determination (qadar) is my secret. No one may know my secret.’ Therefore, some of them say, “The human being is compelled (majbur) in the form of choice (fi qalib mukhtar),” which links the Qur’anic verse and the hadith in a number of ways:
First, it expresses the aspect of human acts found in the Qur’anic verse, which makes them the cause of reward, because of the appearance of choice a person has, which is not expressed in the hadith, which shows the hidden aspect of compulsion in human acts, which makes them like necessary acts, like the movement of the person who shivers, or colors and foods, and other such things that are not the cause of reward or punishment.
Second, it expresses human agency, because he appears to choose the act, although the reason the verse affirms this is because, legally speaking, human acts are the cause of reward, whereas the reason the hadith denies that works are the cause of reward is that, rationally speaking, human acts are not the cause of reward. So the denial and the affirmation are not of the same thing; rather, the denial is of a rational cause, and the affirmation is of a legal cause.
Third, the meaning of the Qur’anic verse, “Enter it because of what you did” is [that it is] a mercy from God, and the meaning of the hadith is that no one enters Paradise because he deserves it because of what he did.
Fourth, the meaning of the verse is “Enter it because of what you did,” although guidance and acceptance are only due to God’s favor, so in fact no one enters it because of deeds alone.
Fifth, the hadith can be taken to mean only entering Paradise, whereas the verse can be taken to mean the attainment of ranks within it.
Sixth, “because of” in the verse means “in exchange for,” whereas in the hadith it implies a causal relationship.
Seventh, the meaning of the hadith is that good deeds, insofar as they are human acts, do not allow the doer to enter Paradise unless they are accepted, and since that is so, and the matter of acceptance belongs to God Most High, only those whose deeds are accepted by Him receive His mercy. T e meaning of the verse is “Enter it because of what you did,” namely an act that is accepted. In this case there is no contradiction between the verse and the hadith. Ibn al-Banna’11 al-Marrakushi said, concerning acquisition, “Everyone finds in himself the ability to advance toward something (al-iqdam) or refrain from it (al-ihjam). A person does not advance or refrain because he knows what God wants concerning this; rather, he advances or refrains because of what his own soul wills and desires, and because he is able to do so. After the fact, he knows that he was compelled to make that particular choice (majbur fi ‘ayn ikhtiyarihi), but not beforehand. Th e direction from which he advanced or refrained (according to his understanding) is acquisition, and the direction from which the act actually occurred is compulsion.
Both are correct (haqq): acquisition from the mode of being God’s viceroy (khalifa), and compulsion with respect to reality (min wajh al-haqiqa). Accountability, reward and punishment are all placed by God Most High on acquisition with respect to the human being (min wajh alkhalq), not on compulsion with respect to reality.”
That is what he said. This is enough to guide a person to the path of guidance. It is best to avoid delving into obscure questions and their answers and argumentation with opponents, for although it was once a theological battle in need of defense, today it is a struggle (jihad) without enemies, and it tarnishes the purity of the hearts of God’s friends, because much investigation into futile matters disturbs the purity of the light of truth in the darkness of the hearts, and that is one of the greatest defects.
Human Power Has No Effect on Anything
You know that originated power has no effect on any possible thing; it attaches [to them] without effect; its relationship to them is like the relationship of knowledge to its object. [Human power] merely attaches to its object in the locus for which it is created (bi-mahalliha) and does not go beyond its locus; there is no relationship between [the empowered act] and [human power], whether of effect or of anything else.
You know that the Mu‘tazila say that a person produces (yakhtari‘u) his own acts, although they agree with us that the originated power does not attach directly to anything except the empowered act, which is in the locus of the originated power, although they think that in the locus there is a cause that brings into existence something outside the locus of human power. They claim that the cause and the thing that is caused are both objects of human power at the same time, one directly and the other through the mediation of the cause. They do not speak of the generation of secondary effects (tawallud) in the locus of the originated power, except abstract knowledge (al-‘ilm al-nazari), which they say is produced as a secondary effect by reflection (al-nazar) in the locus of the power over it. According to their teaching, the generation of a secondary effect means that an originated thing is brought into existence by means of something produced by originated power. This does not contradict what we said earlier about the acknowledgment of secondary causes. They took this teaching from the philosophers concerning natural causes, according to what was said earlier, that nature (al-tabi‘a) has an effect on its object, (see note) as long as no impediment exists to prevent it.
Note: That is, that causes necessarily produce certain effects.
According to them, necessary intelligence (al-‘aqliyya ’l-wajiba) is not like knowledge, because of characteristics belonging to its essences (li-ahkam li-dhawatiha), (see note) because nothing can prevent it, as was already explained. So the Mu‘tazila took this teaching and called it generation [of secondary effects] (tawallud). They did not place secondary causes (al-sabab al-muwallad) on the same plane as rational causes (al-‘illa ’l-‘aqliyya), because an impediment may prevent a secondary eff ect.14 They also changed the expression, so the source of their teaching would not be obvious; they said it is the act of the one who has produced the secondary cause.
Note: A primary cause necessarily produces its effect, but this is not the case with secondary causes.
If this were true, it could not produce a result, because a single effect cannot result from two causes (mu’aththirayn); of necessity, the effect of the cause on it prevents the effect of the power [that produced the cause] on it. To say that the person affects it by means of a secondary cause deflects the result of what is said, as has already been demonstrated, to mean that it is the act of its cause. Likewise, according to them, the exalted Creator [does not produce] human acts; rather, people produce their own acts, and their acts are not acts of God Most High, because they do not allow the attribution of human acts that are evil to Him. Their assertion of secondary causation compels them toward the very thing from which they were fleeing, namely that, according to their teaching, a secondary effect is the act of the one who produced its cause.
One cannot say that the Mu‘tazila were all in agreement concerning secondary causes, since al-Nazzam, who was one of them, attributed secondary effects to the glorified Creator, not in the sense that He did them, but in the sense that He created bodies according to natures and characteristics that require the origination of temporally produced effects arising from those natures and characteristics. He did not say that they are the act of the person who produced their cause. Hafs al-Fard said that [a secondary effect] occurs as a construct of the locus of [human] power and is determined by the choice of the person who produced the cause, so it is the act of the of one who produced the cause, like cutting, bloodletting and slaughter, but not if it does not involve the choice of the person who produced the cause, like the rush of air caused by rapid propulsion (alindifa‘) or something similar; the rush of air is not his act.
They also disagree concerning the time that human power no longer attaches to a secondary effect. Some said that it remains determined (maqdur) by the original act as long as the occurrence of something that is produced by the act is a cause that necessitates the occurrence of the effect; after this point, the effect of [human] power ceases. Others said that it only ceases to be determined [by the original act] when the secondary effect occurs and comes into existence, not when only the cause [of the secondary effect] occurs. They also disagree concerning whether human color and foods can be secondary effects of human acts. Thumama b. Ashras said that these secondary effects are acts without an actor, but that would nullify proof for the affirmation of the Maker. (see note)
Note: The cosmological argument for the existence of God is based on the idea that all things are produced by a cause. The idea that an act can exist without an actor undermines this classic linchpin of theology.
Mu‘ammar, the author of Al-Ma‘ani, said that all accidents occur in the natures of bodies, except will. According to them, there are four types of secondary effects: force (i‘timad), proximity (mujawara), reflection (nazar) that generates knowledge, and fragmentation (waha’), which is the separation of generated parts due to pain (ift iraq alajza’ al-mutawallida li-’l-alam). Al-Jubba’i and his son [Abu Hashim] disagreed on whether the secondary effect is the force or the movement [produced by the act]; al-Jubba’i favored the latter, and his son [280] the former. According to the Mu‘tazila, forces are due to the pull of muscles and the strength of the connection of nerves to limbs. All this is from the teaching of the naturalists (al-tabayi‘in). The result of the foregoing is that they disagree on the cause of pain. Some say it results from a force of one thing on another through a blow or cutting. Abu Hashim leaned toward this but then turned against this idea and settled on the answer that force produces the separation of parts, and he called this separation fragmentation; he said 19 that force generates fragmentation, and fragmentation generates pain. So if God creates pain in a body without the separation of parts or force, scholars agree that it is necessary (daruri). (see note)
Note: That is, not the result of a human act
The difference in their opinions concerning colors and foods has to do with what happens when color is caused by the act of a dyer or washer, possibly from washing after boiling with bleach or other such things: is this an effect generated from a human act or did God simply create this without any human effect or act?
The same question arises concerning foods that are prepared by cooking, or drinks and pastes (ma‘ajin) that are prepared from several ingredients, or other such things that are described in medical books. One of the things that makes them say that colors are secondary effects from human acts is that if the juice produced from fresh, ripe dates is stirred in a natiq, which is the vessel [used for this], as is done for all juices, its color changes only when it is stirred. Most do not accept this as a secondary effect of human action. A small group of the Mu‘tazila of Baghdad and Basra said that it is a secondary effect by extension, through analogy (li-qiyasihim). The Mu‘tazila also disagreed about whether or not it is possible for the acts of the glorified and exalted Creator to generate secondary effects. One group said no, because the power of the Most High is effective over the generality of all things. Another group said it is possible, because one cannot exclude the possibility that something that can occur from God Most High will produce a secondary cause that in turn produces an effect, unless there is an impediment; the issuance of a secondary cause is not an impediment, unless that is evident, so it must produce a secondary effect. That is a summary of what they say about secondary causation.
Against the Generation of Secondary Effects
You know from the foregoing, by decisive proof (al-burhan al-qat‘i), that all originated things depend on the Creator, and that there is no effect from anything but Him on anything, whether in whole or in part. That is a refutation of what they teach about secondary causation. There is no harm in our indicating some of the corollaries that necessarily derive from their insistence on the existence of an effect from two things, namely originated power and the act empowered by it, which is the secondary cause, because they claim that the secondary effect is produced of necessity once the secondary cause exists, and that the secondary effect is the act of the person who did the original act through originated power.
This teaching leads to the absurd conclusion that there can be an act without a doer who willed it or feels that he has done it. If a person shoots an arrow and he falls down dead before it reaches its target, but then it reaches it and hits a living person, who is wounded by it, who continues to experience pain until he finally dies, for example, this bleeding (sariyat) and the pains [according to the Mu‘tazila] are the deeds of the one who shot the arrow, whose bones had [perhaps] already disintegrated (cf. al-Juwayni 1950, 233; al-Juwayni 2000, 127).
There is no absurdity greater than attributing a killing to a dead man, given the elimination of what is required for the dead person to act; otherwise, there would be no proof for the existence of an act when the doer is alive. The existence of an act when there is no one to do it makes it impossible to formulate a proof for the existence of a Maker from the existence of originated things. Even if they say that the act does indicate an actor, their teaching does not require the existence of an actor at the time that the act takes place. The correct response is that an act must be attributed to an actor, and its issuance (suduruhu) cannot be attributed to a person at a time that he cannot act, since its issuance from him requires that his condition be [sufficiently] sound [to perform the act], and prevention (al-imtina‘) eliminates soundness.
This also requires that the death which follows the pains be a secondary effect from the one who caused the pain. To attribute to the shooter what happens to the victim after the pains that occur as a consequence of his act is tantamount to attributing the subsequent death to him. As has already been stated, they have no way to avoid this. Al-Jubba’i had no way to avoid this and had the audacity to rend the consensus of the umma by attributing the victim’s death to the shooter who caused the pain, whereas the umma agrees that the glorified Creator is the One Who gives life and death. Al-Jubba’i said the giver of death is someone else. If a person can give death, then he must also be able to give life, as that is the opposite of giving death, and according to the Mu‘tazila power is over a thing and its opposite. They argue that secondary effects must be attributed to the person who did the original act, if these effects accord with the person’s intention and motive, just like the act that is directly caused by originated power.
The response to them is that events follow others according to [God’s] habit (bi-hasab majra ’l-‘ada); their habitual sequence does not prove that one of these events has an effect on the other.(see note) If this is rejected, then the root, to which one makes an analogy, and the branch, which is the thing being compared [to the root], are of equal value, falling upon the lack of proof for secondary effects, according to most scholars.
Note: For example, God is in the habit of creating wetness of ground after creating the falling of raindrops. Our School, The Ibadis school, like the Ash‘ari, do not see this habitual sequence as proof that the wetness of the ground was caused by the falling of rain.
Another thing that contradicts their doctrine is their argument that we find that things happen according to motives and intentions. [Through this argument] they have helped us to prove that there is no secondary causation. Some examples [the Mu‘tazila give to prove that secondary effects occur according to human motives and intentions] are satiation and quenching of thirst when we eat or drink; illness, health and death, according to most of the Mu‘tazila; the heat produced from rubbing one body forcefully against another; the sparks flying from a fire steel when it is struck; the understanding of speech; the feeling of embarrassment or fear when speech is understood; and causing someone to feel embarrassed or afraid [when one speaks] (cf. al-Juwayni 1950, 234; al-Juwayni 2000, 128).
Some of them say that satiation, quenching of thirst and heat are secondary effects produced [of necessity] by their causes, though most of them do not say this, and they are those who are right (wa-’l-muhassilin min-hum). Th is first group alleges that bodies can be produced by secondary causes, although they are not, according to consensus, the type of thing that can be produced by human power. This is because if the flying of sparks from a fire steel when it is struck is a secondary effect, because it occurs according to human intention, then all other bodies should be able to generate such effects, because they are comparable. If they claim that the fire was hidden within the body, which then moved, and that the cause of the secondary effect was the movement of the body, not the existence of a body, no rational person could accept this, for there is nothing in flint or a fire steel before they are struck.
Likewise, if one cuts open a piece of wood like markh, for example, with a saw, there is no fire in it, but when it is rubbed it appears. If they reply that in these cases there are no secondary effects in these matters for which they have made them necessary, they say this only because they cannot deny that one may intend a certain amount of food to produce satiation, yet it may not, or for a certain amount of water to quench one’s thirst, yet it may not, or to injure someone by striking him, and yet he may not be injured. Likewise, a physician may treat a sick person so he might recover, and he may [not] recover. Likewise, one may strike something with the aim of producing a spark, but it is possible that no spark will be produced. The same applies with trying to make someone understand or feel embarrassed or afraid, and with the heat produced from rubbing. So the effect is not caused by these things.
One should say to them: It has thus been established that there can be no extending (itrad) the effects of human power in the examples you have given, like shooting, wounding, lifting and carrying a heavy body, and other things that are in dispute. Concerning shooting, a person shoots and sometimes hits his mark, and sometimes does not; the wound may bleed, or it may heal without bleeding. A person who wishes to lift and carry something may succeed in doing so sometimes, and not succeed other times.
The teaching of the Mu‘tazila concerning the movement of heavy things is that a heavy thing is moved to the right and to the left , not by pushing against it and lifting it, or, if someone wishes, lifting it and carrying it. They disagreed concerning this: the earlier Mu‘tazila said that the pushing that moves it to the right and to the left then lift s it upward, but [Abu] Hashim and his followers said that is incorrect; rather, more movements are needed besides those that move it to the right and left , because what we depend on to produce a secondary effect is what we feel from the process, according to our motives and intentions, and there is no doubt that we fi nd that a person who has the power to move something to the right and to the left may not be able to lift it, so such a movement must not be sufficient for lifting.
They also disagreed concerning a group that lift s a heavy object, and what each individual in the group independently carries. Al-Ka‘bi and ‘Abbad al-Daymari and their followers said that each one carries parts not carried by the others, and that no two people share in carrying a single part. Other Mu‘tazila said that each one of them affects each part, resulting in sharing. This is the teaching of most of them, but what they all say on both issues is false. If we hold to the true teaching, which is to nullify the principle of secondary causation and to say that all contingent things depend a priori on God Most High, then there is no problem. If we accept it for the sake of argument, the teaching of the earlier scholars on the first issue is false by what Abu Hashim said, though what he says is also wrong, because it entails the conjoining of two comparable things (ijtima‘ al-mithlayn), because he said that there must be more movements, which is impossible.
For the sake of argument, we may accept the possibility that two comparable things may be conjoined, but one should say to him: If the lifter produces one movement in this heavy object, it cannot be lifted except by moving it, for the person must undertake a movement in a body while it remains at rest (sakin) in its location (bi-hayyizihi). That would nullify the reality of the movement, because movement requires expulsion (tafrij), which is impossible. So the stipulation of more movements in an upward direction, in such a manner that it is moving in all directions, is a stipulation of something that will happen without stipulating it, which negates the reality of the stipulation.
As for their disagreement on the second problem concerning a group carrying a heavy object, if each one of them carries it independently, someone who held the first opinion, according to which no part is carried by any particular one of the carriers, or it is unclear [which of them is carrying it], said to ‘Abbad: “If it is unclear [which of them is carrying it], then it would be impossible to lift the part concerning which there is no clarity, because the meaning of its lack of clarity is that it is taken up as a whole, or rather that the effect is on any one of its parts, not this particular part. This is impossible, because the whole does not exist except in one of its members; it has no separate existence. So if one of its individual parts is taken, that is an effect on a particular part, and that is the second section, which is what follows. If it is taken in only one of its individual parts, then the thing is nonexistent and is not a thing, in which case it could not be lifted. If the effect on it is particular to that part, it is also impossible to lift a particular part of it; it is no better than specifying any other part, because if the outcome is that it is receptive by itself, the carrying is of all the parts, so in what sense can one part be taken by itself without any other?
That is because if the carrying of none of the bearers is independent of that of the whole group, the aspect of specifying the part that is carried becomes clear, for example, if it is something that follows its head, because one cannot carry more than it. It would be similar for another part. The other, unlike what can be carried independently, has no way of being specified in that case.” When he said this to ‘Abbad, [the latter] said, “I don’t know how one can specify the part you mentioned.”
One should say to those who hold the second opinion: Is the secondary effect of the act of one of the bearers the same as the secondary effect of the act of another of them, or not? If so, a single effect would be caused by two things, which is impossible. If not, then the lifting of the body is accomplished by one of them, in which case the addition of the others is pointless. So those who say this are delivering a purely fantastical judgment.
One should say to those who say that the effect of each one of them is on each part: Concerning the secondary effect on this part from the act of Zayd, for example, is it the same as the secondary effect from the act of ‘Amr? In other words, is the lifting caused by Zayd the same as the lifting caused by ‘Amr, or is there an effect on this piece from one person’s lifting of it, and another effect from another person’s lifting of it? In the first case, a single effect would result from two causes, and in the second case the lifting of the body is by only one of the two effects. If you look in the books of jurisprudence written by our companions, you will find that they speak of secondary effects in some matters of jurisprudence, but not in matters of doctrine, because to believe in that is pure fantasy, leading to bewilderment and corruption, because the outcome is the necessity of positing a single effect existing between two causes, and the existence of an act without an actor, or an actor who has no will or sense of what he has done, or other such impossibilities discussed here at length.
God’s Knowledge of What People Will Do Does Not Compel Them to Do These Things
Once you know that all acts depend on (mustanida ila) God Most High from the outset, without intermediary, and that no one else has any effect on any aspect of them, you will know that all acts are equal with respect to God; none of them may be called good with respect to His essence or His attribute, nor can any of them be called bad. Th ere is, therefore, no room for the mind to understand any of God’s laws, for they have no cause (sabab), as you know. So what is good according to the Shari‘a pertains only to what they are commanded to do (illa ma qila fi -hi if‘aluhu). Likewise, nothing is bad except what is prohibited (illa ma qila la taf‘aluhu), as has already been explained.
The Mu‘tazila say that voluntary acts are rationally good or bad, and that some of them are necessarily understood by the mind, like the goodness of beneficial truthfulness and faith, and the evil of harmful lying and unbelief, and that others are not rationally comprehensible through reflection, like the goodness of telling the truth when it brings harm, and the evil of telling a beneficial lie, and others that cannot be understood without the teaching of the law, like the goodness of fasting on the last day of Ramadan, and the evil of fasting on the first day of Shawwal. They say concerning this type of law that the lawgiver [the Prophet] brings information from the mode of the locus, not that he establishes a law, like a wise man who informs people that a particular land is hot or cold, for example. They also disagree among themselves.
The earlier Mu‘tazila said that deeds are inherently good or bad, and some of them said this is because of a characteristic that attaches to the deed. For example, fasting breaks lust, which leads to a lack of corruption, whereas adultery includes the mixing of lineages, which leads to the birth of illegitimate children. Another group of them distinguished between evil and good by saying that evil is bad because of its attribute (lisifatihi), whereas good is good because of its essence (li-dhatiha). Their proof is that all essences are equal, and the distinction between them is only because of their attributes, so if a deed were bad because of its essence, its evil would attach to the Most High. Al-Jubba’i and his followers said that the mind approves and disapproves [of an act] because of an aspect (wajh) and consideration (i‘tibar), so the beating of an orphan is approved if it is for purposes of discipline, and disapproved if it is for some other reason.
The refutation of all this is in what was said earlier: that human beings have no effect on any aspect of their acts, so their obligation or prohibition are not good because of human reason. Th e laws of the Shari‘a are all based on the fact that these deeds are commanded because they entail reward or punishment, or do not entail reward or punishment, as has already been explained. If deeds were described as good or bad because of their essences or because of a necessary attribute, God would not have ordered the unbelievers to believe, and this last is false by consensus.
Th e clarification of the dependence (al-mulazama) [of judgment concerning acts on God’s will alone] is that the Most High knew that the unbeliever would not believe, so to order him to believe is to order him to do the impossible, which is bad [from the perspective of human reason]. Furthermore, if a deed is good or bad because of its essence or because of a necessary attribute, it would never vary, sometimes being good and sometimes being bad, or else opposites would be conjoined, as if somebody says, “Tomorrow I will tell a lie,” which could be either true or false. In other words, if his saying this is good, because he told the truth, but it is [also] bad, because it necessarily entails the occurrence of its corollary, telling a lie, which is bad. There is no doubt that it would be good for him to go against his word and avoid what is bad. To say that a good deed is always good and a bad deed is always bad necessitates in daily speech the conjunction of the characteristics of inherent good and evil, which are necessarily contradictory—the good cannot be bad, because of the inherent contradiction in their meaning, according to usage and understanding, as Sa‘d [al-Taft azani] said, that good and bad are equal because they are opposites. It can also be explained another way, that the person [who said he would lie the next day] must either lie the next day or tell the truth: in the first case, evil attaches to him because he lied, and good attaches to him because he told the truth in what he said in the first place, and goodness must attach to what is good.
So in what he said the second day what is good and what is not good (al-hasan wa-’l-la hasan) are conjoined, and that is the conjoining of opposites. In the second case [if he tells the truth on the second day], the goodness of what he said on the second day attaches to him, because he told the truth, and its evil attaches to him because he told a lie on the first day, so two opposites are conjoined. This conjoining of opposites occurs in the first three [Mu‘tazilite] opinions, but not in the fourth, [that of al-Jubba’i and his followers,] because in this case a deed is not simultaneously being described as good and bad, but through different considerations, for example, the conjoining of paternity and prophethood in a single person through two distinct attributions.
On the issue of the Ahl Al Fatrah the Mu’tazila & Ibadi agree. The Ibadi and Ash’ari disagree.
On the issue of the knowledge of the Moral Code. The Ibadi and the Ash’ari agree. The Mu’tazila and the Ibadi disagree.
On the issue of acquisition (kasb) the Ibadi and Ash’ari agree. The Ibadi and the Mu’tazila disagree.
May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah to sound doctrine.
“Allah said, O Jesus, I shall cause you to die and will exalt you in my presence and shall purify you of the ungrateful disbelieving people, and shall place those who follow you above those who deny the truth, until the Day of Judgement; then to Me shall all return and I will judge between you regarding your disputes.” (Qur’an 3:55)
“And they have thereof no knowledge. They follow not except assumption, and indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all.” (Qur’an 53:28)
﷽
The Pseudo-Salafis are attacking Imam Imran Hossein because he basically doesn’t believe that the Qur’an says the following:
“And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill himnor did they impalecrucify him but Allah made some random individual look exactly like Jesus and that person was crucified instead of Jesus. Those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge of it, but only follow conjecture. For certainly, they did not kill him.” (Qur’an 4:157)
“What did Allah do to make it appear…that he died? Let me warn you! And my language some time is very harsh. Because that is the only language some people can understand. Don’t come with this nonsense! Because it is not only pathetic nonsense it is absolutely sinful! To say that Allah (authubillah) caused someone else to take the appearance of Nabi Isa (a.s) and that innocent man, innocent because he never claimed to be the Messiah! He was crucified. Wait for judgement day with that nonsense! Pathetic nonsense! It’s not there in the Qur’an. It’s in your imagination. That’s where it is. Yet it took the world of Islam by storm. What a brain washed ummah we are today! Well than what happened? Well, then why don’t you go to the Qur’an and let the Qur’an explain rather than go on fancy flights of imagination. “-Shaykh Imran Hossein.
Now notice that @ 1:27 this “Nasir Al Hanbali” states:
“We will bring the Ayah in the Qur’an and the Tafsir from ibn Kathir narrated by Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan, but notice how this creep (Shaykh Imran Hossein) says: “why don’t you go to the Qur’an and let the Qur’an explain…” but he brings no Ayah from the Qur’an, just his weird: “LET ME WARNN YOUUU!!!“
“You gonna tell Allah on judgement day you caused that man to assume the appearance of someone? And he who never claimed to be the Messiah he was crucified that is an act of injustice! You are attributing injustice to Allah what foolishness. Where are the scholars who will correct this foolishness? That’s why I have to be so forceful in my language. Allah took his soul. That he was dead. They took down the body. They put the body in a cave. They sealed the cave. Allah returned the soul. As simple as that. Nobody knew that the body, that the soul was returned and Allah raised him. But let me warn you one more time. If you stick with this theory of substitution you are going to be in a pathetic state on judgement day. Let me warn you one more time. This is a simple explanation from the Qur’an. “- Shaykh Imran Hossein.
So than “Nasir Al Hanbali” puts the following recitation up:
“Nasir Al Hanbali” than ask us: “Do you think Shaykh Ali Jaabir was wrong and the creep was right?”
My comment:
Where did Shaykh Ali Jabir recite “the resemblance of Isa was put over another man (and they killed that man” ? Shaykh Ali Jabir did not recite that at all! Yet the text put up there fools those who do not understand the Arabic text!
Then, ‘Nasir Al Hanbali’ gives us another reciter.
“Nasir Al Hanbali” than ask us: “Do you think Shaykh Abu Bakr ash-Shatiri was wrong and the creep was right? Let us listen to the next reciter, Shaykh Sa’ood ash-Shuraim.”
Prima Qur’an comment:
Where did Shaykh Abu Bakr ash-Shatiri recite “the resemblance of Isa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)”? Shaykh Abu Bakr ash-Shatiri did not recite that at all! Yet the text put up there fools those who do not understand the Arabic text!
Prima Qur’an comment:
Where did Shaykh Sa’ood ash-Shuraim recite “the resemblance of Isa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)” ? Shaykh Sa’ood ash-Shuraim did not recite that at all! Yet the text put up there fools those who do not understand the Arabic text!
This is simply pure deception on behalf of the one who put the video up.
“Allah said to Isa: Allah said: O Isa (Jesus)! I will take you and raise you to Myself [Qur’an 3:55] Allah said: “Ya Isa” referring to Isa ibn Maryam (a.s) when the Jews plotted against him, they wanted to kill him. They entered upon him wanting to kill him [because] their norm was to kill Prophets. When they entered upon [Isa ibn Maryam], Allah raised him from amongst them. He made another man resemble him. They grabbed that man, crucified him and killed him thinking that he was Isa. As for Isa, then Allah raised him from amongst and they did not perceive it. That is why Allah says: “but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them [the resemblance of Isa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)],” [Qur’an 4:157] -Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan
Prima Qur’an comment:
Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan has invented an outright lie about Allah (swt)! Let the Shaykh be reminded the following:
“And who is more unjust than one who invents a lie about Allah or says, ‘It has been inspired to me,’ while nothing has been inspired to him, and one who says, ‘I will reveal something like what Allah revealed.’ And if you could but see when the wrongdoers are in the overwhelming pangs of death while the angels extend their hands, saying, ‘Discharge your souls! Today you will be awarded the punishment of [extreme] humiliation for what you used to say against Allah other than the truth and that you were, toward His verses, being arrogant.’” (Qur’an 6:93)
Prima Qur’an comment:
Where did Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan get the daleel from the Qur’an and Sunnah that ” He made another man resemble him.” This is Aqeedah! The Qur’an does not say this! This is not from the Sunnah!
Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan continues:
“Allah made this man resemble the Messiah, Isa. He himself accepted it and ransomed himself; he ransomed himself and he accepted that he would be killed and crucified. Allah honored him and did not waste this person and what he did with the Messiah. It is said that the one who Allah made to resemble Isa was the one who practiced treason; the one who led [the Jews] to Isa. The one employed treachery or betrayed Isa and led the Jews to him. Allah made him resemble Isa, so they killed him. However, the first opinion is more famous, that the one who chose to resemble Isa was honored and he chose to take his place. This man sacrificed himself for the sake of Allah, he was crucified and killed, so the Messiah Isa ibn Maryam could be saved from them. And Allah knows best. Allah raised him alive with him soul and his body. Not how some of the ignorant individuals say: “he was only raised with his soul.” He was raised with his soul and body alive. They were not able to touch him with any harm.” -Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan
Prima Qur’an comment:
Where did Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan get the daleel from the Qur’an and Sunnah that “Allah made this man resemble the Messiah.” This is Aqeedah! The Qur’an does not say this! This is not from the Sunnah! How can we be so carefree in ascribing to Allah (swt) such things and in the next breath say, “he first opinion is more famous.” Of course the opinion that some random person volunteered to be killed sounds better than just some random guy being chosen! The point being Shaykh Salihi al-Fawzan we don’t attribute opinions and conjecture to Allah (swt) !! It would have been appropriate to say that this is an interpretation of the text that was taken from the People of the Book and it does not have a sound chain of narration.
Also, which text in the Qur’an says that Allah (swt) “He was raised with his soul and body alive.”
Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan continues:
“As for His statement: I will take you.. [Qur’an 3:55] The word Wafaat can mean death and it can also mean to sleep. “It is He who takes your souls by night (when you are asleep), and has knowledge of all that you have done by day,. [Quran 6:60]” -Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan
“Wafaat here means to sleep and Allah knows best or I will take you…[Qur’an 3:55], It can also mean to take you. Mutawaffi also means to take; Tawaffa haqqahu min fulaan [he took his rights from so and so]. The word Wafaat here does not mean death. Because the Messiah is still Alive and will descend at the end of times, he will kill the Dajjal and then he will die after that.” -Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan
“Because: “Every soul shall taste death.” [Qur’an 3:185] He [Isa a.s] will die after that. The point of evidence here is that [the Ayah]: “I will take you and raise you to Myself” [Qur’an 3:55] To raise him to him is not done except to a higher place. This is proof that Allah is [always] high and above [His creation]. -Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan
Prima Qur’an comment:
Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan quotes the verses: “It is He who takes your souls by night (when you are asleep), and has knowledge of all that you have done by day,. [Quran 6:60]” Does he not realize that he further proves our point that Jesus is dead? If there is any confusion as to what happens when we “sleep” let the Blessed Messenger (saw) explain it to you.
When we sleep we die. Our soul travels. If Allah (swt) does not return to the soul to the body than we die in our sleep. As far as Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan statement: “To raise him to him is not done except to a higher place. This is proof that Allah is [always] high and above [His creation].”
To Allah (swt) shall all return [not just Jesus].
“Indeed, to Allah we belong and to Allah we shall return.” [Qur’an 2: 156]
It does not mean spatial location. Even though Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan who is fond of taking his creed from the people of the book Allah (swt) is not contained in a spatial location.
“And he said: Lo! I am going to my Lord Who will guide me.” [Qur’an 37:99]
Ibrahim a.s says I am going to my Lord did he mean from place to place? No.
It is unfortunate because the more you investigate the beliefs of ‘Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah‘ on this you can see they are in disarray over it.
Some say someone random was made to look like Jesus and he was put on a cross.
Other’s say Jesus was on a cross and died.
Other’s say that Jesus was on a cross but he passed out and latter was resuscitated.
“And they have thereof no knowledge. They follow not except assumption, and indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all.” (Qur’an 53:28)
“Allah said, O Jesus, I shall cause you to die and will raise you up to Me and shall purify you of the ungrateful disbelieving people, and shall place those who follow you above those who deny the truth, until the Day of Judgement; then to Me shall all return and I will judge between you regarding your disputes.” (Qur’an 3:55)
﷽
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf states in the interview with Kim Iversen: “What Islam Really Says About Jihad, Martyrdom, and Women’s Rights“, which has been shortened to: “What Islam Really Says About Jihad.“
@17:27 minute mark, Shaykh Hamza says: “The vast majority of Muslims believe in the second coming.”
“There is no god except Him. He gives life and causes death. Your Lord, and the Lord of your forefathers.” (Qur’an 44:8)
“That is because Allah is the Truth, He gives life to the dead, and He is Most Capable of everything.” (Qur’an 22:6)
“Allah said, “Jesus, I will cause you to die and raise you up to me, and purify you from those who denied the truth, and I will exalt your followers over those who deny you until the Resurrection Day. Then you all will return to me, and I will judge between you in matters about which you disagree.” (Qur’an 3:55)
﷽
So it was brought to my attention that a Christian thought this was a good argument to prove that Jesus (as) is God. Really these people insult their own followers and readers.
“O people, a parable is set forth: pay heed to it. Those who call upon aught other than Allah shall never be able to create even a fly, even if all of them were to come together to do that. And if the fly were to snatch away anything from them, they would not be able to recover that from it. How powerless are those who invoke and those invoked!“ (Qur’an 22:73)
“And a messenger to the Children of Israel, ‘I have come to you with a sign from your Lord: I will create for you a bird from clay, breathe into it, and it will become a bird—by Allah’s Will. I will heal the blind and the leper and raise the dead to life—by Allah’s Will. And I will prophesize what you eat and store in your houses. Surely in this is a sign for you if you ˹truly˺ believe.” (Qur’an 3:49)
O people, a parable is set forth
A parable is: A short moral story that illustrates a universal truth.
“Those who call upon aught other than Allah shall never be able to create even a fly.”
The statement is directed at that those deities that worshippers petition in their prayers. This is drawling attention to the fact that Allah (swt) alone is the originator of the heavens and the earth.
“Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, “Be,” and it is.” (Qur’an 2:117)
A fly is something that most common people would consider to be a nuisance. We swat it away as it comes near our food or our face. Allah (swt) is saying that those whom people call upon other than Allah they are not even able to create a fly.
The other interesting point and implication of this verse is that today scientist are in their labs trying to create life. However, what is simply goes over our heads in such experiments is that:
a) The scientist are intelligent beings attempting to create life. The scientist themselves are part of the variables in the experiment.
If they do indeed create anything it is the result of intelligent design, a creation directed by an intelligence.
“And if the fly were to snatch away anything from themthey would not be able to recover that from it.”
First there is something very deep about this verse upon tafakkur- notice that the verse says: “They would not be able to recover that from it.” If one person was to steal a watch from another individual as long as that watch has not been altered or destroyed it is possible to recover that watch.
However, what the fly does is vomit on the food and liquify it now uses a proboscis to slurp the liquified food. So even if you caught the fly you would not be able to recuperate that which was taken from it.
Now when it comes to the verse that the Christian thinks proves the deity of Christ let us look at it:
“I will create for you a bird from clay, breathe into it, and it will become a bird—by Allah’s Will.“
This is where the real insult to the readers intelligence begins. They quote half the verse thinking that the reader will not read the whole of the verse. When we do, we quickly find that these actions are by Allah’s Will. They are not by the will of Jesus (as).
“I will heal the blind and the leper and raise the dead to life—by Allah’s Will.“
Notice something else interesting. When Jesus (as) continues he says: ” And I will prophesize what you eat and store in your houses.” Yet the statement does not end with the statement “by Allah’s Will”. This is because it is already established that Jesus (as) is a Prophet of Allah (swt) and he is authoritative. Yet, when Jesus (as) performs acts that look as if they break some supposed “laws of causality” he clearly needs to mention that this is by Allah’s Power and not his power. By Allah’s Will and not his will.
We shouldn’t be surprised by this because even in the text considered sacred by Christians we find:
“You men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as you yourselves also know.” (Acts 2:22)
Also what is a bit amusing about this supposed argument from the Christian is that it shows just how stepped in ignorance they are over some of the basics of Islamic theology and doctrine-this is across the board. I have personally never heard or seen any of them being grounded in Islamic theology.
What is amusing is the following: The statement in Arabic that you see above: “There is no Might or Power except with Allah.” The transliteration from Arabic would be: La hawla wa la quwwata illa Billah.
So Jesus (as) does not need to create a bird out of clay. He doesn’t even have to do anything fancy really.
Jesus (as) could simply say: “I eat this banana independently from the Might and Power of Allah”, and that in ad of itself would be a claim to deity.
If a Muslim says: “I obtained this PhD independently from the Might and Power of Allah.” That person would have existed the religion of Islam and would need to reaffirm their testification of faith.
There is no action done in existence that is not dependent upon the Might and Power of Allah. Allah is the Sovereign King of our entire existence!
There is no Kingdom of Satan and Kingdom of Allah (swt). All of existence is the Kingdom of Allah (swt).
Even when we steal an apple, our limbs, various systems in our bodies down to the molecular and atomic levels are all acting in accordance with the Might and Power of Allah What is not acting in accord with it is our Will. *Note* Not independent of Allah’s Power or Might but not in accord with it. Allah has willed that we have will that can act not in accordance with Allah (swt). However, it is impossible for anything in existence to act independently of the Might and Power of Allah (swt).
“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)
To learn and understand more about the doctrine of kasb (acquisition) you may be interested in reading the following:
Allah (swt) has power over the life and death of Jesus
“Allah said, “Jesus, I will cause you to die and raise you up to me, and purify you from those who denied the truth, and I will exalt your followers over those who deny you until the Resurrection Day. Then you all will return to me, and I will judge between you in matters about which you disagree.” (Qur’an 3:55)
Allah (swt) can destroy Jesus.
Even if Allah (swt) endowed Jesus with power over life and death, Allah (swt) has power over the life and death of Jesus himself!
“Say: “And who could have prevailed with Allah in any way had it been His will to destroy the Christ, son of Mary, and his mother, and everyone who is on earth-all of them? For, Allah’s is the dominion over the heavens and the earth and all that is between them; He creates what He wills: and Allah has the power to will anything!” (Qur’an 5:17)
In this situation Jesus has about as much chance as a moth in a candle stick factory.
According to the sacred text of the Christians the miracles of Jesus in the Qur’an are a big whoopty doo (a nothing burger)
In fact, if we are to believe the New Testament, Christians should be able to outshine and outclass the miracles of Jesus.
“Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.” (John 14:12)
Which follower of Jesus ever turned water into wine?
Which follower of Jesus walked on water?
Elisha’s dead bones could bring people to life.
“Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.” (2 Kings 13:21)
“Have you not considered the one who argued with Abraham about his Lord [merely] because Allah had given him kingship? When Abraham said, “My Lord is the one who gives life and causes death,” he said, “I give life and cause death.” Abraham said, “Indeed, Allah brings up the sun from the east, so bring it up from the west.” Then the unbeliever was confounded. God guides not the people of the evildoers.” (Qur’an 2:258)
Notice that when the man replied to Abraham saying: “My Lord is the one who gives life and causes death,” he said in reply: “I give life and cause death.” Abraham did not dispute this.
Why? Because on an observable empirical data the man has a point. He can get a woman pregnant. He can take his sword and end a life. This man is not seeing from the vantage point of a believer that knows that Allah (swt) ultimately is the one behind life and death. Thus, Abraham had another argument which left the man confounded.
When Allah (swt) says:
“That is because Allah is the Truth, He gives life to the dead, and He is Most Capable of everything.” (Qur’an 22:6)
This is true because ultimately it is Allah that has power over life and death. We see people who should not be able to have children, have children. We see people beat cancer. That is why Jesus (as) is saying: “by Allah’s Will” it is by his qudra, his will, his power.
May Allah (swt) guide the Christians to the truth before they taste the eternal hellfire.
They pleaded, “O Zul-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, “This is a mercy from my Lord. And when the Promise of my Lord comes, He will crumble it to dust. And the Promise of my Lord is true.” (Qur’an 18:98)
“And We shall leave them, on that Day, to surge against one another like waves. And the trumpet shall be blown, and We shall gather them together.” (Qur’an 18:99)
First we will share a clip in which the Mufti of Oman, the Islamic Scholar, the Sword on the Neck of the Munafiq, His Imminence, Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h) touches upon two topics:
The emergence of Gog and Magog and the so-called second coming of Jesus (as). For those of you conversant in Arabic, you may follow along. Otherwise, a translation in English is provided below: insh’Allah.
First question about Juj & Majuj
Grand Mufti was asked if there are some signs in the Qur’an about Juj & Majuj. Can you share with us your view on this issue? Have they already come or are they yet to come later?
Grand Mufti replies: “This depends upon the research of the scholars. As there are many scholars who have agreed that they have already come forth. And this is not far away from reality, because it is possible that between their coming and the day of judgement there is a lot of time in between these events. Time is different from how we measure time. It is like the time on the day of judgement would be like 50,00 years of our time.”
Dr. Saif AlHadi asked what is meant in the Qur’an:
“Until he reached ˹a pass˺ between two mountains. He found in front of them a people who could hardly understand ˹his˺ language.” (Qur’an 18:93) and than the following verse:
“They pleaded, “O Zul-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)
So Dr Saif AlHadi is asking how we join these verses? Because if you take the apparent text of the Qur’an without approach to interpretative measures, it may not make sense. At first, they find a people who scarcely understands any word, and then suddenly, in the next verse, are those people able to communicate their issue with him?
So, to this, the Grand Mufti replies: There are two possibilities. 1) “That the majority of them do not understand anything but this would not mean all of them do not understand. So it is possible they have learned among those who understand but not the masses of them. “
2) “The other possibility is the use of another language common between the two.”
Now the question comes to the: The Coming of Jesus.
Grand Mufti replies: “There is a difference of opinion among scholars. This revolves around the (Qur’an 3:55) “I will give you death and I will raise you up to me.” and how one understands it. As well as: Rather, “Allah raised him up to Himself. And Allah is Almighty, All-Wise” (Qur’an 4:158) as well as the various narrations on the matter. Yet these hadith for us are not tawatur. We also have to take into account that the Prophet is the last prophet and no prophet is coming after him. The Messenger of Allah and seal of the prophets. And ever is Allah, of all things, The Knowing. (Qur’an 33:40) So as we understand this Jesus (as) will not come. The narrations are not mutawatir and thus we cannot take on this matter.
Prima-Qur’an comments:
Thus, dear readers, when one reads the Qur’an, you can see that Juj (Gog) & Majuj (Magog) were real people, real nations or tribes that would accost and harass some people. Zul-Qarnain was asked to erect a barrier to keep those people out. They were not supranatural peoples.
wanufikha fi l-suri (AND) will be blown the Trumpet. As Shaykh explained, he is of the mind that this event (The coming of Gog and Magog) has already happened. Now in English it is easy to get caught up in the flow of the language. Yet, the WA (And) is not something that indicates immediately after. We saw this in our article here:
In the above article, the respected Shaykh understood the WA(And) in Qur’an 3:55 as a vast period of time. Allowing him to believe that a lapse of time of more than 2000 years has passed.
The Shaykh also mentioned that it is possible we are in those end times now. However, we should understand that how Allah (swt) views and measures time is quite different from our vantage point.
“And they ask you to hasten on the punishment, and Allah will by no means fail in His promise, and surely a day with your Lord is as a thousand years of what you count.” (Qur’an 22:47)
Next, another verse not brought up in the discussion above, but the other place we am aware of in the Qur’an speaking of Gog and Magog is the following:
“Until ˹after˺ Gog and Magog have broken loose ˹from the barrier˺, swarming down from every hill, ushering in the True Promise. Then—behold!—the disbelievers will stare ˹in horror, crying,˺ “Oh, woe to us! We have truly been heedless of this. In fact, we have been wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 21:96-97)
The above verse simply reinforces the point made here:
“And We shall leave them, on that Day, to surge against one another like waves. And the trumpet shall be blown, and We shall gather them together.” (Qur’an 18:99)
Which, again, is not on the day of judgement but at a time before it.
Conclusion: In the Ibadi school. Juj(Gog) and Majuj (Magog) have already come. Jesus (as) has died, and he will not come back.
In the end, we defer our matter to the masters of the Arabic language. May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
If you would like, perhaps you would be interested in reading the following:
Prima Quran 