Tag Archives: muhammed

June 15, 2026 · 7:33 am

The so called ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is a Protestant attack upon the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian and Roman Catholic Churches.

“The Jews and Christians each claim that none will enter Paradise except those of their own faith. These are their desires. Reply, “Produce your proof if what you say is true.” (Qur’an 2:111)

﷽ 

This above verse encapsulates the Qur’anic approach to interfaith debate, which is not limited to textual proofs, but reasoned proof. This is sensible considering huge swathes of the population were illiterate. Illiteracy does not mean one could not reason or one could not think.

What is striking and deeply ironic is that the ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is not merely a Protestant argument against Islam. It is a veiled attack on traditional Christianity itself. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Christians who adopt this argument are unwittingly fighting on Protestant ground, using Protestant weapons, against their own ecclesial principles.

The “Islamic Dilemma” is a very specific form of argument. It is a logical, text-based trap: if it is assumed that the Qur’an says the Bible is true, and the Bible contraditcts Islam, then Islam is false. However, If the Bible is unreliable and corrupted, then it is assumed that Islam is still false because of the claim that the Qur’an repeatedly affirms the divine authority, inspiration, and preservation of the very same scriptures.

The trap is clever, but it rests on a fatal assumption: that the Qur’an is referring to the Protestant canon, and that it commands the laity to consult it directly. Neither assumption is true.

For the Protestant this is a debate about the accuracy and authority of written texts.

For a Catholic, Orthodox, or Assyrian Christian, this framing is a false start as well as a betrayal of their own tradition. The ‘dilemma’ demands that the Bible be treated the way Protestants imagine Muslims treat the Qur’an: as a direct, self-interpreting, accessible text for the laity. Yet this is a caricature of both traditions.

Muslims have always had direct access to the Qur’an through recitation and prayer. It is memorized, recited, and heard. Yet like Christians before the Reformation, they have never approached it as a text for private interpretation. The Shi’i have their Imams; the Sunni and Ibadi have their scholars and jurists. The Church, not the text, is the pillar of truth for traditional Christians. And the community of scholars, not the individual, is the pillar of interpretation for Muslims. Both traditions are built on communal, mediated authority. Only Protestantism is built on the chaos of the individual.

The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is demonstrably historically fallacious.

  1. It posits that Christians in the 7th century engaged with their scriptures rather than defer to Church authority.
  2. It posits that Muslims in the 7th century accept books that Protestants themselves today do not accept.
  3. It posits that Muslims and Christians engaged in cross referencing Bible canons with the Qur’an.
  4. It posits that people in the 7th century have a high degree of literacy.
  5. It posits that Bible canons were widely availabe to every Christian household.

The Qur’an engages communities and their learned.

“We did not send before you except as men to whom We revealed. Ask the People of the Reminder if you do not know.” (Qur’an 16:43)

You can read various Tafsir here:

https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/16.43

Al Wahidi says:

(And We sent not (as Our messengers) before thee other than men whom We inspired…) [16:43]. This verse was revealed about the idolaters of Mecca who denied the prophethood of Muhammed, Allah bless him and give him peace. They said: “Allah is too great to have a human being as His messenger; could He not have sent an angel?”

Source: (https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/16.43)

Notice that the people are being told to ask the people. They are not being told to consult the gospel or the torah.

“So “if you are in doubt concerning that which We have revealed unto you, then ask those who are reciting the Book before you. Verily, the truth has come to you from your Lord. So be not of those who doubt (it).” (Qur’an 10:94)

Notice it says ask those who are reciting the book. The one(s) being addressed are not being told to consult the gospel or the torah.

As regard the ‘if’ Arabic grammar has conditionals that are similar to what we find in English.

The zero conditional is used for universal truths or general facts. Example: If water reaches 100°C, it boils.

The second conditional is used for unlikely or hypothetical scenarios. Example: If I won a million dollars, I would travel the world.

So the example used above is the conditional used for universal truths and general facts.

The zero conditional in Arabic (as in English) is not a genuine hypothetical. When the Qur’an says ‘If you are in doubt…’ it is not suggesting that doubt is possible. Rather, it is establishing a universal principle: when in doubt (and the Prophet -peace be upon him, was not), the remedy is to ask the learned. The ‘if’ is rhetorical. To make a point, not to suggest a real possibility.

Examples in the Qur’an:

“Say, “If The Most Merciful had a son, I would certainly have been the first one to worship him.” Exalted is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, Lord of the Throne, above what they describe.”(Qur’an 43:81-82)

The if here is not one of a hypothetical but rather a universal truth. Allah does not have a son.

“Say, “If there had been with Him gods, as they say, then they would have sought to the Owner of the Throne a way.” (Qur’an 17:42)

The if here is not one of a hypothetical but rather a universal truth. There are no other gods.

Also, let us take a look at a key part of the text. “Ask those who are reciting the book.” It doesn’t say ask the Jews or Samaritans. It doesn’t say ask the Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Christian, or the Eastern Orthodox. It says, ‘those who are reciting the book‘. So, if Muhammed (saw) asked ‘those who are reciting the book, he would receive some common themes but also a cacophony of discordant voices. 

This confirms the following:

“Do not be like those who became divided and differed after the clear proofs had come to them.” (Qur’an 3:105)

“The Jews and Christians each claim that none will enter Paradise except those of their own faith. These are their desires. Reply, “Produce your proof if what you say is true.” (Qur’an 2:1111)

Notice the text says ‘produce your proof’ it does not say ‘let us consult the torah and the gospel’.

Another example.

“Or have they taken gods besides Him? Say, “Produce your proof. This is the message for those with me and the message of those before me.” But most of them do not know the truth, so they are turning away.” (Qur’an 21:24)

In both examples with the idolaters of mecca, the jews and the christians all are being told to ‘produce their proofs’ what are your arguments.

Why do the rabbis (l-rabaniyuna) and religious scholars (ahbaru) not forbid them from saying what is sinful and devouring what is unlawful? How wretched is what they have been practicing.” (Qur’an 5:63)

This is a clear appeal to authority. The rabbis and scholars could only be faulted if it was known that they had authority over thier people. The verse presupposes that the religious leaders have authority and that they are failing in their duty. This is a direct parallel to the traditional Christian model, where bishops and councils, not laypeople, are the authority.

This is not accidental. The Protestant project has always sought to undermine ecclesiastical authority. By recruiting traditional Christians to fight the ‘Islamic Dilemma,’ Protestants are achieving what centuries of polemics could not: getting Catholics and Orthodox to abandon their own ecclesial principles and adopt the Protestant method of direct textual engagement.

It is bad enough that Protestant Evangelicals are ignorant of the context of 7th century Arabia, as well as the reality of the Pagan Arabs, as well as the Jewish and Christian communities.

What is extremely shocking is that representatives of traditional churches are willingy to drink from the same cup of ignorance.

Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) has never been the position of any traditional church.

Jesus claims that neither he nor the Bible guide you into all truth.

“I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when HE, the Spirit (Pneuma)Πνεῦμα of truth comes HE will guide you into all truth: (HOW?) For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (from God) that shall HE speak: and HE will show you things to come.” (John 16:12-13)

The problem for the Protestant: If the Spirit guides into all truth, then the Scripture can’t be the only infallible authority. This means The Bible alone does not contain all truth. It is only a partial revelation at bests and awaiting the Spirit of Truth and his guidance.

The problem for Catholics/Orthodox: If the Church (tradition) is the vehicle of the Spirit’s guidance, then the Church’s authority is self-referential and circular.

This is circular because:

The Church’s authority depends on the Bible
The Bible’s authority depends on the Church
Neither can independently validate the other.

So here we are. The real issue is we were promised someone who would SPEAK but in reality all we have are church councils (EO/Catholic) or private interpretations (1001 Protestant denominations). Stalemate.

The problem for the Catholics/Orthodox is that Protestants have unwittingly recruited them into an argument that undermines them and their authority.

The layman did not go directly to the text in the 7th century Arabia.

There are number of reasons historically why this is not the case.

1) Literacy, one cannot assume that the average person could read and write, Arabic, Amharic, Ge’ez, Aramaic, Greek. For example the reference in Qur’an 10:94. This has to obviously be a reference to those who can read. This brings us to the next point.

2) Not only does Qur’an 10:94 have to be a reference to those who can read but those who would have access to a text. So this brings us to the lack of accessibility to the text. Today a Bible can be found in your average hotel. In that time people were not walking around with full canons.

3) It is a Protestant approach to go direct to the scripture and not a Traditional Church perspective. If one was Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox or Assyrian Church of the East, it was not the habit of laypeople to go directly to the text.

Thus, the Qur’anic command to ‘judge by what Allah has revealed’ cannot mean ‘read the Bible for yourself.’ It would have been historically impossible for the vast majority of Christians to comply. The command must mean something else entirely something consistent with both the traditional model of authority and the lived reality on the ground.

The Protestant use of the Islamic Dilemma is actually a full frontal attack on traditional Christianity (be it Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Assyrian Church of the East). Imagine Protestants telling Muslims to go direct to the Torah or the Injeel without the medium of the Holy Spirit or the guidance of the Church!! This is very mischievous and very cunning proposition propagated by the Protestants (esp evangelicals).

There were no Protestant churches nor a Protestant canon in the 7th century.

The following verse is often used by Protestant Christians.

“Do you believe in some of the book and reject the rest? Is there any reward for those who do so among you other than disgrace in this worldly life and being subjected to the harshest punishment on the Day of Judgment? For Allah is never unaware of what you do.” (Qur’an 2:285)

For the sake of argument let us say that Muslims understand this verse in the way that Protestants do.

What objective basis do the Protestants have for determing what is part of the book and what is not?

What objective basis do the Protestants have for determing what is scripture and what is not?

If a Muslim in the 7th or 8th century were to listen to the children of Israel, in particular the tribes of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh what would the Samaritans advise in regard to following which scriptures?

The Muslim would find that the Samaritans reject all parts of the Bible except what they consider the Torah. That is to say they only accept Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. They reject the rest.

If a Muslim in the 7th or 8th century were to listen to the children of Israel, in particular those who are called Jews, what would be the advise in terms of scripture?

The Muslims would find that the bulk of Jews follow more than the five books that the Samaritans follow. They also follow an oral torah.

If a Muslim in the 7th or 8th century were to embrace Christianity they would join any number of traditional churches that accepted the following books: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees.

The Protestant canon of 66 books did not exist in the 7th century. It was a 16th-century invention. The Qur’an could not possibly be endorsing a canon that did not yet exist. This alone destroys the ‘Islamic Dilemma’.

If a Muslim in the 7th or 8th century were to embrace Christianity they would join any number of traditional churches that differ on the canon of the New Testament as well.

“By the beginning of the 5th century, or slightly earlier, the Syrian Church’s version of the Bible, the Peshitta (‘simple’ translation) was formed. For the New Testament it represented an accommodation of the Syrian canon with that of the Greeks. It contains 22 books – all of the present New Testament except:

II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, Revelation of John.”

“For the eastern part of the Syrian Church this constituted the closing of the canon, for after the Council of Ephesus (431 CE) the East Syrians separated themselves as the Nestorians. There are many surviving manuscripts of the Peshitta, the oldest of which bears the date 442. For much more on Peshitta history, see the article at The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism. It is noteworthy that exactly these 22 books are cited by John Chrystosom (~347-407) and Theodoret (393-466) from the School of Antioch. For a visual summary of these 22 books see the Cross Reference Table.”

Source: (http://www.ntcanon.org/Peshitta.shtml)

Thus, even if we assume the Qur’an is endorsing the Peshitta canon, it would be endorsing a Bible that lacks five books the Protestant considers canonical. Which canon did the Qur’an endorse? The answer: none. The Qur’an does not endorse any canon. It endorses the original revelation, which is now lost or corrupted.

The Protestants imagine that the Qur’an is somehow endorsing a tangible canon.

What tangible canon would that be? Especially seeing that the Christians themselves were/are in dispute over it?

This is the same question that Christians who follow a traditional Church pose to those who espouse ‘anti-Islamianity’. That is why their whole preaching is against Islam, but they don’t have anywhere for Muslims to go after they apostate from Islam. It’s just anti-Islam teaching, but they (those preachers) do not reveal which church they are affiliated with. That is if they are affiliated with one at all.

This is also known as ‘churchless apologetic’.

This is why the ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is promoted primarily by ‘churchless apologists’. Grifters and independent evangelicals with no affiliation to any traditional Church. They have no stake in defending a particular ecclesiastical tradition. They simply want to tear down Islam, with no thought to where the Muslim convert would go. They are a law unto themselves, accountable to no one but their own whims and private interpretations. And this, ironically, is precisely what the traditional Churches have always warned against i.e The chaos of sola scriptura without the anchor of ecclesiastical authority.

Let us reflect on what Pope Benedict XVI said in his ‘What Is Christianity?’

“All of this means that the Christian faith is not a religion of the Book (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 108 and the Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini of 2008). Holy Scripture speaks only in the living community of the Church. There is a double exchange here, a relationship of subordination and superordination. On the one hand, the Church clearly submits to the Word of God, always having to let itself be guided and judged by it, on the other hand, however, Scripture, starting
from its whole, can only be adequately interpreted in the living Church. This position, adopted by the whole Church until the 16th century, was rejected in the Reformation with the principle of sola
scriptura . Christianity now appears as a religion of the Book.

Source: (Benedetto XVI Che Cos’e il Cristianesimo quasi un testamento spirituale).

Here we have the Pope himself affirming that the Catholic Church does not treat the Bible as a self-interpreting text. The Qur’an says the same thing: ‘Ask the People of the Reminder.’ The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is not just unhistorical it is anti-Catholic, anti-Orthodox, and anti-Assyrian.

Holy Scripture speaks only in the living community of the Church. -Pope Benedict.

Example.

The doctrine of Invincible Ignorance.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that not everyone necessarily needs to confess Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour simply becuase not everyone is able to do so.

“Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

“But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:8-9)

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already.” (John 3:18)

These text seem very clear that one needs to confess their faith in Jesus to be saved. However, the Roman Catholic Church via it’s doctrine of ‘Invincible Ignorance’ says not so fast.

The concept of invincible ignorance allows for the salvation of young children, the mentally disabled, and others who never heard the gospel.

St Augustine has a whole chapter title called: Chapter 2 [II.]— Faith in Christ Not Necessary to Salvation, If a Man Without It Can Lead a Righteous Life.

He states:

“Therefore the nature of the human race, generated from the flesh of the one transgressor, if it is self-sufficient for fulfilling the law and for perfecting righteousness, ought to be sure of its reward, that is, of everlasting life, even if in any nation or at any former time faith in the blood of  Christ was unknown to it. For God is not so unjust as to defraud righteous persons of the reward of righteousness, because there has not been announced to them the mystery of Christ’s divinity and humanity, which was manifested in the flesh. 1 Timonty 3:16 For how could they believe what they had not heard of; or how could they hear without a preacher? Romans 10:14 For faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say (adds he): Have they not heard? Yea, verily; their sound went out into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. Romans 10:17-18.  Before, however, all this had been accomplished, before the actual preaching of the gospel reaches the ends of all the earth — because there are some remote nations still (although it is said they are very few)”

Source: (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm)

The doctrine of invincible ignorance even allows for pagans who persecuted and killed Christians to enter heaven if the Pope prays for their deliverance. There is no need for the person to confess Christ even if they are able.

John of Damascus said that God freed Trajan from Hell after the prayers of Saint Gregory the Great.

“Further, the Damascene in the same sermon relates that Gregory, while praying for Trajan, heard a voice from heaven saying to him: “I have heard thy voice, and I pardon Trajan; : and of this fact the Damascene adds in the same sermon, “the whole East and West are witnesses. ” Yet it is clear that Trajan was in hell, since “he put many martyrs to a cruel death” [De his qui fide dormierunt]. Therefore the suffrages of the Church avail even for those who are in hell.”

Source: (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5071.htm)

The Roman Catholic Church can appeal to scripture but it is not necessay.

“And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34)

“In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.” (Acts 17:30)

So Catholics argue that God cannot issue commands that people can’t obey.

If the Catholic Church can interpret away the seemingly clear words of Acts 4:12 and Romans 10:9, then on what basis do Protestants claim that the Bible is self-iexplanatory? The very existence of the doctrine of invincible ignorance proves that the Church and not the text is the final authority.

Catholics like Sam Shamoun and Cameron Bertuzzi stand ready to debate Protestants like Anthony Rogers and Samuel Green on Invincible Ignorance.

The Protestant project has always sought to undermine church authority.

In Mainz, Germany, in the mid-1450s, Johann Gutenberg and his partner Johann Fust published more than 150 large-format copies of the Bible in Latin. This is the book known today as the Gutenberg Bible. That was in the 1450s, and there were 150 copies.

Up until that point, imagine all the Christian souls scattered throughout the Earth; they lived and died without once having or holding an individual Bible in their possession. Hopefully, some Christians will be more appreciative of this fact.

For over a millennium, Christians had no personal Bibles. They relied on the Church. They relied upon its liturgy, its priests, its bishops, its councils. The Protestant idea that the Bible is for the laity is a 16th-century invention. The Qur’an, revealed in the 7th century, could not have been commanding Christians to do what was historically impossible.

Books in those times were luxury items reserved exclusively for the ultra-wealthy, ruling elites, and church communities.

Ordinary Christians experienced the scriptures orally. They would gather together at church services to hear a literate priest or bishop read the letters and gospels aloud.

That Christian laity did not rely upon the Bible to receive their guidance. They relied upon their respective church, whether it was the Latin Roman Catholic, Assyrian Church, Oriental or Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church, and not scripture, was the source of guidance and inspiration for the average Christian.

We can clearly see that the Qur’an has never endorsed the entirety of any Biblical canon or text.

The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ has two horns both of which rest on an assumption. The assumption is that the Qur’an claims the Bible is true.

Does the Qur’an claim the Bible is true?

The word Bible has its etymological root in the Greek ta biblia, which means “small books”.

Possibly the closest equivalent would be the following:

“The Messenger believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, and so do the believers. They believe in Allah, His angels, His Books (kutubihi), and His messengers.” (Qur’an 2:285)

This particular verse does not clarify which books are to be believed. Only that Muslims are to believe
in ‘His Books’.

As we have demonstrated that historically speaking, Protestants cannot prove that the Qur’an 2:285 is identical to a 66 book canon.

One thing is certain. The Gospel is not included in the text of Qur’an 2:285. Hoever, Jesus is included in Qur’an 2:285.

The Qur’an never describes the Gospel as a book given to Jesus.

“And He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel.” (Qur’an 3:48)

An interesting note on the above. If the Torah was intact there would be no need for Allah to teach the Torah to Jesus.

“And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus , the son of Mary, (ma bayna yadayhi) having authority over the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and having authority over that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.” (Qur’an 5:46)

“So let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed in it. And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are the rebellious.” (Qur’an 5:47)

If the Gospel was in pristine condition the verse would have simply stated:

“And let the Christians judge by the Gospel.”

Yet, it is drawing attention to the ‘People of the Gospel’ (ahlul l’injili) to judge by what Allah has revealed therein.

The people who have the nomenclature ‘People of the Gospel’ are to judge.

Again keep in mind this is not a call for Christian laity to engage directly with their text.

Recall that we have already established two unassailable points. 1. Literacy was not widespread among all people. 2. Even it were not everyone had access to a text.

“Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them(ʿindahum).” (Qur’an 7:157)

If a person possesses a heavily edited or condensed version of a historical document, it is still legally and conversationally “with them” (ʿindahum).

Example.

“And those who disbelieve say, ‘Why was the Qur’an not revealed to him all at once?” (Qur’an 25:32)

This is a reference to the Qur’an but the entirety of the Qur’an was not revealed at this time. Yet the text is still calling it the Qur’an.

The Qur’an debunks the Protestant claim of preservation.

“There are some among them who distort what is in the Book(bil-kitabi) with their tongues to make you think this is from (l-kitabi) the Book but it is not what the (l-kitabi) Book says. They say, “It is from Allah”—but it is not from Allah. And they attribute lies to Allah knowingly.” (Qur’an 3:78)

The Protestants sweep this accusation aside by affirming that the text doesn’t say anything about textual corruption. It is about people who twist the words and meanings of their sacred text. However, as pointed out in a society where illiteracy was common place, the laity did not go directly to the text and many of them did not have the requisite language skills to acces it. This was already quite poisonous.

However, the next text are not so easily swept aside.

“Have you any hope that they will be true to you when a party of them used to listen(yasma’una) to the word of Allah, then used to (yuharrifunahu)change it, after they had understood(‘aqaluhu) it, knowingly.” (Qur’an 2:75)

This verse is quite explicit in the damnation of these people. That they actually would listen to the words of Allah (auditory hearing), they understood it, confirmed it and knowingly changed it during the oral transmission process!

  1. Received the revelation from Allah.
  2. Understood it.
  3. Knowingly distorted it during the oral transmission process.

One would have to be extremely vile to do such a thing.

‘Then woe to those who write the Book (l-kitaba) with their own hands, and then say: “This is from Allah,” to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.’ (Qur’an 2:79)

This is what we find “with them” (ʿindahum).

“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the (תּוֹרַת יְהֹוָה Torat YHWH) law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (Jeremiah 8:8)

Notice the text of Qur’an 2:79 says they make gain by what they wrote.

The following says that Jews can give interest to non-Jews but not to one another.

“Unto a foreigner you may lend interest; but not unto your brother you shall not lend interest, that Jehovah your God may bless you in all that you put your hand on, in the land wherever you go into possess it. When you shall vow a vow unto Jehovah your God, you shall not be slack to pay it: For Jehovah your God will surely require it of you; and it would be sin in you.” (Deuteronomy 23:20-21)

The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ uno verse card.

The Qur’an claims that the Gospel, Zabur and Torah are revelation from Allah.
If one claims they have the Gospel, Zabur or Torah and those contents do not claim it is from Allah then it should be rejected.

For example, let us imagine that the Gospel is equivalent to any number of competing New Tesatament canons (35 books, 22 books or 27 books) this in and of itself raises questions how one objectively comes to the correct number of books.

However, is there anywhere where the New Testament claims that it is from God?

Many Christians will point to 2 Timothy 3:16.

Let us examine the text.

“Every writing inspired by God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction which is in righteousness.”

Well, this doesn’t say much. Every writing (graphé)inspired by God is profitable. This begs the question. On what objective basis does the Protestant determine which writings are inspired by God?

πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ

The Two Possible Readings

TranslationReadingImplication
KJV / ESV / NIV“All writing is God-breathed and profitable…”Predicative: All scripture (as a category) is inspired
ASV / RSV / NEB“Every writing inspired by God is also profitable…”Restrictive: Only inspired scripture is profitable

The Grammatical Issue

The Greek construction πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος (pasa graphē theopneustos) is ambiguous:

  1. Predicative Reading: “All writing is God-breathed” (the adjective describes the entire category)
  2. Restrictive Reading: “Every writing that is God-breathed” (the adjective limits the category)

The Critical Point:

The absence of the verb “is” (ἐστιν – estin) in the Greek makes the translation a matter of interpretation. There is no explicit “is” in the text. The translator must decide whether to supply it as a predicative or a restrictive statement.

By the way, most of your translations will translate graphé as ‘scripture’ to give you the indication that it is somehow sacred.

Look how the various translations render the Greek into English.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/2-timothy/3-16-compare.html.

The restrictive reading makes the most sense. That is because there is no Christian on Earth that believes that every writing is God -breathed. That would also make the Qur’an God-breathed and we would not be having this conversation.

The problem for the Protestant. (Every Christian must ask this in reality).

If only some writings are God-breathed, then:

  • Who determines which writings are inspired?
  • What is the criterion for inspiration?
  • How do we know which graphē are God-breathed?

This leads to the question of canon.

The Circular Problem:

  1. Protestant Claim: 2 Timothy 3:16 proves that all Scripture is inspired.
  2. Problem: The verse does not tell us which writings are Scripture.
  3. Result: We must have a canon to know which writings are inspired.
  4. But: The canon is determined different competing apostolic Churches, not by the text itself.

This is circular because:

The Church’s authority depends on the Bible.
The Bible’s authority depends on the Church.
Neither can independently validate the other.

So here we are. In reality all we have are church councils (EO/Catholic) or private interpretations (1001 Protestant denominations). Stalemate.

The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ undermines Jesus teachings and becomes a Satanic Dilemma for themselves.

“If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. “How then will his kingdom stand?” (Matthew 12:26)

The context of Matthew 12:26 is Jesus’ response to the Pharisees, who accused him of driving out demons by the power of Beelzebul (Satan). Jesus used logical reasoning to expose the flaw in their claim, explaining that a divided kingdom or household cannot survive. Therefore, it would make no sense for Satan to cast out his own demons, as that would mean working against himself and destroying his own kingdom

The Protestant claim is that the spiritual force behind the Qur’an is none other than Satan.

If Satan inspired the Qur’an, why would he command people to follow the Torah and Gospel?

The Bible says Satan is the father of lies.

“You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44).

If he is the father of lies, he would not inspire a book that tells people to follow the truth (the Bible).

Therefore, the Qur’an cannot be from Satan. It must be from God.

The Christian cannot escape this without admitting that the Qur’an is either:

A) From God (which they deny), or

B) A bizarre, self-defeating satanic book that commands people to follow the very scripture that would lead them to Jesus and save them from Satan. This ultimately debunks Jesus logic given in Matthew 12:26.

C) The Christian must admit that the Qur’an does not confirm the totality of what Christians call the Gospel and what Jews call the Torah. This would mean the Qur’an’s confirmation is selective, conditional, and discriminatory. But this undermines the entire foundation of the ‘Islamic Dilemma’.

The Christian cannot say the Qur’an is entirely false (because it commands people to follow the Bible) and cannot say it’s entirely true (because that would mean accepting Islam). The only logical exits are:

Admit the Qur’an is from God (conversion).

Admit that Satan sometimes commands people to follow God (which is theologically absurd)

Admit the Muslim position is true (the Qur’an does not confirm the totality of what Christians call the Gospel and what the Jews call the Torah -which undermines both faiths.) < This would be what Satan would do. Satan would obfuscate a matter not lead people to God.

This is why traditional Christian Churches such as the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Assyrian Church of the East did not use these type of arguments against Islam.

They recognized the logical fallacy of such arguments. However, many catechumens of both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition have fallen for the Protestant approach. They have brought shame and disrepute towards their respective churches.

The ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is a Protestant invention. It is historically ignorant, theologically shallow, and logically self-defeating. It betrays the very traditions it purports to defend. Traditional Christians who embrace it are unwittingly abandoning their own principles and fighting a battle on Protestant ground. The Qur’an invites a different approach: reasoned argument, consultation with the learned, and a return to the original revelation that it confirms and clarifies. The question is not ‘Which text is true?’ but ‘Where is the truth?’ And the Qur’an answers: it is in the Reminder that Allah has sent down. It is clear, preserved, and accessible to all who seek it.

To fully appreciate the Qur’anic message, we must imagine the religious landscape of the 7th century. it was a world of competing factions, warring sects, and conflicting claims to truth.

Consider the scene. The Jews and Samaritans were at odds with one another. The Samaritans accepted only the Pentateuch, rejected the Prophets and Writings, and worshipped on Mount Gerizim. The Jews accepted the entire Tanakh and worshipped in Jerusalem. Both claimed to be the true heirs of Abraham. Both anathematized the other neither accepting Jesus as the Messiah, each claiming to possess the true Torah. The Samaritans had their own version of the Torah, their own Mount Gerizim, their own priesthood. The Jews had their own Torah, their own Temple Mount, their own rabbinic traditions.

Then you had the Christians. But which Christians? The Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Christians, the Eastern Orthodox all arguing with one another over the nature of Christ, the number of his natures, the proper way to calculate Easter, the veneration of icons. Each claimed to be the true Church. Each claimed to have the true faith. Each anathematized the others.

These Christians practiced baptism as a death and resurrection ritual.

Then you had the Sabeans, also known as the Mandeans. They accepted John the Baptist but not Jesus. They practiced ritual baptism, but it carried a different meaning than what the Christians claimed. They had their own scriptures, their own prophets, their own traditions. They were a living witness to the fact that baptism was not the exclusive property of Christianity.

And among all these groups, there was no unified voice. The Pope in Rome claimed authority over the West. The Patriarch of Constantinople claimed authority over the East. The Patriarch of Alexandria claimed authority over Egypt and Ethiopia. The Patriarch of Antioch claimed authority over Syria and beyond. Each claimed to be the successor of Peter, the guardian of the true faith.

There was no single Bible. There were multiple canons: the 27-book canon of the West, the 22-book canon of the Syrian Church, the longer canons of the Ethiopian and Coptic Churches. There were multiple languages: Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Ge’ez, Armenian. There were multiple traditions: the Latin Rite, the Byzantine Rite, the Syriac Rite, the Alexandrian Rite.

Into this chaos came Muhammed, peace be upon him, with a single, powerful, unifying voice. He did not claim to bring a new religion. He came to restore the ancient faith of Abraham. The faith that all the prophets had taught. He did not speak from his own authority. He recited what was revealed to him by Allah, through the Angel Gabriel. He did not claim to be a new pope or patriarch. He claimed to be the final Messenger, confirming what was true in the previous revelations and correcting what had been corrupted.

The message was simple, clear, and cohesive:

  • There is no god but Allah, and Muhammed (saw) is His Messenger.
  • Allah is One. Not three, not incarnate.
  • All the prophets from Adam to Jesus (upon them be peace) taught the same message: submission to the One God.
  • The Qur’an is the final, preserved, and clarifying revelation.
  • Judgment is coming. Believe and do good. Or reject it and face the consequences.

For a truth-seeker in the 7th century, the choice was clear. On one side, a cacophony of competing sects, conflicting canons, and anathematizing councils. On the other side, a single, powerful, unifying voice calling all people to submit to the One God. Which message was more cohesive? Which message was more compelling? Which message would you follow?

Allah/God addresses this very scene:

‘So He has made the religion straight and simple. And do not be divided over it.’ (Qur’an 42:13)

‘And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided.’ (Qur’an 3:103)

‘And those who have been given the Book did not differ except after knowledge had come to them—out of jealousy among themselves.’ (Qur’an 42:14)

The Qur’anic message of unity was not just theological it was a lived reality. It offered clarity in a world of confusion. It offered authority in a world of division. It offered access to revelation in a world where the layperson was excluded from the text. And it offered a single, unified community in a world of warring sects.

“O humanity! What has emboldened you against your Lord, the Most Generous?” (Qur’an 82:6)

May Allah guide the sincere Christians who are longing for the truth. Those who have a hunger in their heart for guidance.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.




Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 13, 2026 · 11:15 pm

Are Prophets Jesus & Muhammed foretold in the Old Testament?

“Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet, the unlettered, whom they find mentioned in the Law and the Gospel.” (Qur’an 7:157)

﷽ 

Introduction: Methodology and Metonymy

Note that the above text does not indicate that a name would be found in the Law or the Gospel. It is simply descriptions of this Prophet.

However if we were to entertain the possibility of the name of the Blessed Prophet (saw) being mentioned anywhere what would the methodology look like?

What is the methodology used to show that the Blessed Prophets Jesus & Muhammed is mentioned in the Old Testament?

For our Christian brothers and sisters to be consistent, we would like to bring their attention to the following text:

He said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and in the prophets and in the psalms must be fulfilled.”(Luke 24:44)

Note: Jesus talks about events written about him in the law of Moses; however, when we look at the Torah, we do not find the name of Jesus anywhere.

There can only be one of two conclusions from this.

  1. Jesus was not telling the truth.
  2. When Jesus says, ‘written about him ‘. He is speaking about metonymy.

The Christians conclude that point 2 is the correct understanding. Though Jesus is not mentioned by name at all in the Law of Moses; Christians would point out that the scriptures speak of him, nonetheless. This is a matter of interpretation, not a matter of explicit textual evidence.

In both the Qur’an and the ‘Gospel according to Luke’ a literary device known as metonymy is used.

What is metonymy?

“Metonymy has traditionally been defined as merely a figure of speech where the name of one entity is substituted for that of another entity that is contiguous to it (Peters, 2003; Wendland, 2003). Thus, according to the traditional rhetorical view, metonymy is only referential, and it involves substitution provided that the substituted entities are contiguous. Thus, according to cognitive linguists, metonymy is not merely a figure of speech; it is also a way of thinking and conceptualizing. Therefore, any definition of metonymy should not talk about words or names of things; rather, it should be about concepts or entities.”

Source: (Translation of Metonymy in the Holy Qur’an: A Comparative, Analytical Study) -Reem Salem Al-Salem

This methodology used by the Christians should be kept in mind as we continue our discussion on “Muhammed and Jesus mentioned in the Old Testament.”

We simply ask that consistent methodologies be used.

The New Testament makes the following claim about the Tanach/Old Testament concerning Jesus.

“That he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” (1 Corinthians 15:4) Jews have always been puzzled by this Christian claim as there simply are no Scriptures (here meaning the Tanach) about a Messiah who will rise from the dead.

We have seen well meaning Christians offer the following:

Psalms 16:8-11
Isaiah 53:10-11
Hosea 6:1-2
Jonah 1:17-2:2, 6-7, 10. 

Yet when brought under close examination by both Muslims and Jews none of those text say anything at all that the author of Corinthians 15:4 is claiming.

Third the New Testament back projects supposed prophecies about Jesus that are nothing more than quote mining text. There is nothing amazing in the text to warrant awe to begin with. Worst still the text has to be taken out of context to even remotely, possibly, apply it to Jesus!

Case in point.

“And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” (Matthew 2:15)

First off what is even remarkable about this? Really? However, what is truly embarrassing is the source this is ripped out of context from.

“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more they were called, the more they went away from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.” (Hosea 11:1-2)

This text in no way shape or form is a reference to Jesus. Who ever thought it was a good idea to rip the text of Hosea 11:1 and ignore the context and some how make this some amazing prophecy should fear Allah! If we were take this into context we would have to believe that the more Allah (swt) called to to his son (Jesus) -instead of (Israel) the more they(Jesus) went away from him (Allah). They (Jesus) sacrificed to Baals and they (Jesus) burned incense to images. This demonstrates a complete disregard for the context of the verse, which is a serious interpretive error.

So the fact that Christians can do this and be amazed about these prophecies in the Tanach when there are more tenable and reasonable prophecies about Muhammed (saw)then it really shows you the depths of some people’s spiritual blindness.

“Indeed, it is not the eyes that are blind, but it is the hearts in the chests that grow blind.” (Qur’an 22:46)

The Metonymy has to make sense. In the case of Matthew 2:15 and the citation of Hosea 11:1-2 it does not work.

Using the methodology of Matthew We can establish a prophecy concerning Muhammed (saw) in the Old Testament.

“Then the book will be given to the one who is illiterate , saying, “Please read this.” And he will say, “I cannot read .” The Lord says: “These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is based on merely human rules they have been taught.” (Isaiah 29:12-13)

Anyone who has studied Islam knows that this is a prophecy concerning the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) in the cave of hira when the angel Gabriel came to him.

Contextomy: How New Testament writers quote the Old Testament for prophecies.

To show the reader that it is not very difficult to take passages out of context in the “Old Testament” and make them apply to Jesus, we decided to see if we were any good at it. None of these are prophecies that Christians currently accept. However, we quote mined the Tanach and found things that could be applicable to Jesus. This is known as contextomy. You the reader be the judge.

“And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man, thus fulfilling what was WRITTEN of him.” (Luke 2:52)

Well, we would then have a {footnote} that would say (Proverbs 3:4). You, the Christian wanting to see the amazing ‘prophecy’ fulfillment’ would turn to find.

“And you will find favor and understanding in the sight of God and man.” (Proverbs 3:4)

So that is fulfilled in Jesus. If not, why not?

“And they all forsook him and fled, thus fulfilling what was WRITTEN of him.” (Mark 14:50)

We would then have a {footnote} that would say (Isaiah 53:3). You, the Christian wanting to see the amazing ‘prophecy’ fulfilled, would turn to find:

“He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” (Isaiah 53:3)

So that was fulfilled when the disciples all left Jesus. If not, why not?

“Jesus wept, thus fulfilling what the scripture said concerning him.” (John 11:35)

We would then have a {footnote} giving (Psalms 69:3). You, the Christian wanting to see this amazing ‘prophecy’ fulfilled, would then find:

” I am weary with my crying; my throat is parched. My eyes grow dim with waiting for my God.” (Psalms 69:3)

So this was fulfilled when Jesus wept. If not. why not?

If Christians object that these examples are ‘taken out of context,’ then they must apply the same standard to their own proof-texts. Context matters, unless it is being used to support a theological agenda.

Christians see Jesus in Psalm 22 but not Psalm 51.

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from my cries of anguish? My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, but I find no rest.” (Psalm 22:1-2)

So the Christians will argue with the Jews that Psalm 22 is about Jesus.

However, Christians will not say the same about Psalm 51.

“ Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according to your great compassion
    blot out my transgressions. Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin.” (Psalm 51:1-2)

The name of Jesus is neither text. The presupposition of the one doing the interpretation.

For example the Jews do not accept the Christian interpretation of (Psalm 22) as a reference to Jesus.

Source: (https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/the-truth-about-psalms-22-17)

Jews are often exhausted by Christian attempts to find references or prophecies concerning Jesus in the Tanach. Likewise, this frustration is given to Muslims by Christians who feel that there are no references to Muhammed (saw) in the Tanach.

Are prophets Jesus (as) or Muhammed (saw) mentioned by name in the Tnch?

Jesus name in the Tnch would be Yeshua יֵשׁוּעַ

Yeshua” is the Aramaic form of “Joshua” (Yehoshua).

The name “Yeshua” appears approximately 30 times in the Tanakh, referring to various individuals.

The name means that ‘God is salvation’. Which should be a huge eye opener for any Christian. There would be no Hebrew name that would be equivalent of saying: ‘I am salvation’ for that would be blasphemous.

Second, it is proof beyond doubt for those who have hearts to see and minds to reflect that the name Jesus cannot be the name of God. It was a run of the mill name.

There was a magician named Bar Jesus.

“When they had travelled through the whole island as far as Paphos, they met a magician named Bar-Jesus who was a Jewish false prophet.” (Acts 13:6)

Jesus the son of the father or Jesus called Messiah.

So when the crowd had gathered,Pilate asked them,‘Which one do you want me to release to you:
Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?’” (Matthew 27:17)

There was a contemporary of Paul called Jesus-Justus

“And Jesus, who is called Justus, who are of the circumcision; these alone are my co-workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me.” (Colossians 4:11)

Another proof that Jesus cannot be the name of God is the following text:

“Then the Levites, Jeshua, Kadmiel, Bani, Hashabneiah, Sherebiah, Hodiah, Shebaniah, and Pethahiah, said, “Stand up and bless the Lord your God from everlasting to everlasting. Blessed be your glorious name, which is exalted above all blessing and praise. (Nehemiah 9:5)

It is clear that someone with the name Jesus is askingfor blessing in the name of God. -Which is not his name. This Jesus in the Tanach is directing praise away from himself.

Is this name Yeshua יֵשׁוּעַ connected to any prophecies about a future prophet in the Tanach? 

The answer is no it is not.

There is however another so called claimed name to be of Jesus (as)

We read: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us“. (Matthew 1:23)

This is used to make a connection to some supposed prophecy of a virgin birth:

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son,and will call him Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14)

Immanuel is also a common Jewish name which means ‘God is with us‘.

Maher-shalal-hash-baz was called Immanuel in the following text:

“It shall pass into Judah and flood it all throughout up to the neck it shall reach; It shall spread its wings the full width of your land, Immanuel!” (Isaiah 8:8)

That this is an example of a failed prophecy plain pure and simple. It’s amazing the lengths that Christian apologists will go through to make this all add up. It is used as a plot device to move the story of Jesus along. No one called him Immanuel at all. Not his own mother, not his disciples. The Christians do not baptize in this name or pray to this name at all.

Now imagine if the text in Isaiah 7:14 said: “The virgin will conceive and give birth a son, and will call him Yeshua .” Now that would be truly something wonderous.

Is the name of Muhammed (saw) in the Bible?

Now obviously, for a Chrisitian or a Jew this debate has huge implications for them.

First and foremost this may come as a shock to many in the Jewish and Christian communities but what you call the “Hebrew alphabet” today is actually the Assyrian (square) script (Ktav Ashuri, כתב אשורי), borrowed from Aramaic, while the Samaritan script, which is largely forgotten outside of Samaritan communities, is actually a direct descendant of the ancient Paleo-Hebrew script used by the Israelites before the Babylonian Exile.

In other words, the Samaritans, who were historically marginalized by mainstream Judaism, preserved the original Hebrew script, while the Jewish community, which considers itself the true heir of Israelite tradition, abandoned it in favor of a foreign-derived script.

Source: (https://samaritantorah.com/samaritan-alphabet)

The debate around Mahamaddim.

The Hebrew Bible does not have a rigid, mathematically perfect rule for the intensive (“majestic”) plural. It is a feature of the language, not a strict law.

The claim that mahamaddim is an adjective is precisely what is being debated. If a Muslim argues it is a proper noun (a name) disguised in a plural form, then the “adjective” rule does not apply.

So let us take a look

Muhammed‘s name in the Tanach would be: Mahamaddim מַחֲּמַדִּ֑ים -someone greatly desired, someone greatly sought and longed for.

Mahamadd-im the im is a plurality of respect for someone of high position and/or status.

Source: (Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English lexicon https://hebrewcollege.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/BDB.pdf)

So their claim is that this word is a noun. A noun is a reference to a person, a place or a thing.

Source: (Koehler-Baumgartner (HALOT): The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament https://yausha.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/The-Hebrew-and-Aramaic-lexicon-of-the-Old-Testament-study-edition-volume-1.pdf)

Their claim is also that this word is a noun. A noun is a reference to a person, a place or a thing.

“His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.” (Song of Solomon 5:16)

This name is a foreign name in Hebrew. Hebrew (with the exception of liturgy) was a dead language for quite some time until Eliezer Ben-Yehuda with the aid of the Arabic language revitalize it.

Arabic preserved the ancient Semitic root system more faithfully than Hebrew, which was dormant for centuries.

Is this name Mahamaddim מַחֲּמַדִּ֑ים connected to any prophecies about a future prophet in the Tanach? 

The answer is yes: 

“My beloved is white and ruddy, the chief among (מֵרְבָבָֽה)–merebabah- ten thousand.” (Song of Solomon 5:10)

This individual is connected with the coming of 10,000. He is a conqueror. He has a fiery law (The Qur’an) in his right hand.

Notice that the Orthodox Jewish Bible says: 

“His mouth is most sweet; yeah he is machamaddim (altogether desirable [see Shir Hashirim 2:3; Chaggai 2:7 says Moshaich is the Desired of All Nations]). This is dodi (my beloved), and this is my friend ,O banot Yerusahylayim. [T.N. The next chapter is commented on extensively beginning at page vii. This section is one of the most important Scriptures in the Bible because it buttresses Isa 7:14 and its foundational meaning.]”

It connects the Song of Solomon passage with Haggai 2:7

“And I will shake all the nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: And I will fill this house with glory, says the Lord of hosts.”

Now they (Orthodox Jewish Bible) believes that the Desired of all nations is the Moshaich. We have established that it is Muhamaddim.

Conclusion.

  • The plural form *-im* can function as an intensive plural (majestic plural) to indicate greatness or high status.
  • This is precisely how the Orthodox Jewish Bible interprets it: “machamaddim (altogether desirable)” but then connects it to the Messiah.
  • Therefore, even if it is not a proper name in the grammatical sense, it functions as if it were a title for a specific individual—the “Desired One.”

God’s unconditional promise to Abraham. And the conditional covenant with Isaac

“And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: behold I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him A GREAT NATION.” (Genesis 17:20)

How did God keep his promise as stated in Genesis 17:20?

Although some people say that God did indeed bless Ishmael by blessing the Arabs with oil or giving Ishmael’s descendants this or that material good, we must reflect on what it means when God says he will make someone A GREAT NATION.

The Prophet Job comes to mind when we think of this because what was the greatest gift God gave to Job was unwavering faith in him. It was not the double portion of things lost but the confidence of knowing that one can serve God even in the face of great adversity.

A GREAT NATION by God’s definition does not necessitate material wealth and benefit.

“And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?” (Mark 8:36)

Is Ishmael an Illegitimate son?

Sometimes our Jewish and Christian brethren will try and object by claiming Ishmael was illegitimate, although this is not the case.

“And Sarah, Abram’s wife took Hagar, her maid, the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan and gave her to her husband to be his WIFE, (not concubine or mistress!) and he went unto Hagar, and she conceived; And she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.” (Genesis 16:3-4)

“I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (Genesis 12:3)

We as Muslims in our five daily prayers during the sitting (julus) position on the 2nd rakat or the 4th rakat recite the following:

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

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

This is very different where the author of the Torah is calling Abraham cursed.

The father of the promise (Abraham) is called cursed for sleeping with his father’s daughter.

For example:

“Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father, though not of my mother, and she became my wife.” (Genesis 20:12)

“Cursed is anyone who sleeps with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother. Then all the people shall say, “Amen!” (Deuteronomy 27:22)

THE CONDITIONAL COVENANT WITH ISAAC

Sometimes our Christian & Jewish friends may even tell us that God established his covenant with Isaac.

It is important to keep in mind two things regarding this. One is that Isaac was never the only son, and the second is that the contract or covenant had stipulations attached to it.

“If these ordinances depart from before me, says the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me forever. Thus, says the Lord; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundation of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all they have done, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 31:36-37)

Now the counter to this is that it means that Israel will never cease to be under a covenant with God. This is not true. The text above is hyperbole. This is proven by the following explicit text. If that covenant was unconditional God would not allow or say the following:

“And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses’ anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount. And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it.” (Exodus 32:19-20)

“That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, you have been rebellious against the Lord and how much more after my death? Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears and call heaven and earth to record against them. For I know that after my death you will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because you will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.”(Deuteronomy 31:25-29)


“The Lord said to Moses, Tell the Israelites: You are a stiff-necked people. Where I go up in your company even for a moment, I would exterminate you, Take off your ornaments, therefore; I will then see what I am to do with you. So, from Mount Horeb onward the Israelites laid aside their ornaments.” (Exodus 33:5-6)

But if you do not obey Me and do not carry out all these commandments, if, instead, you reject My statues, and if your soul abhors My ordinances as to not carry out all My commandments, and so break My covenant, I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that will waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also you will sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies will eat it up.” (Leviticus 26:14-16)

“For the Lord your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; otherwise the anger of the Lord your God will be kindled against you, and He will wipe you off the face of the earth.” (Amos 9:8)

“A remnant (very few) of Israel will return, a remnant (very few) of Jacob will return to the Mighty God.” (Isaiah 10:21)

In fact in the New Testament the following is attributed to Jesus:

“Jesus said unto them, did you never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes? Therefore, I say, The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to A NATION bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: But on whomsoever, it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And when the chief priest and Pharisees had heard this parable, The perceived that he spoke of them.” (Matthew 21:42-45)

The stone in Mecca is called: Hajar Al Aswad-The Black Stone.

Hajar-Is the name of the Mother of Ishmael-Father of the Arabs.

“And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: behold I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him A GREAT NATION.” (Genesis 17:20)

How was the above promise kept in (Genesis 17:20)

Answer:

“Certainly, we have revealed to you a Book which will give you greatness. Do you not then understand?” (Qur’an 21:10)

Alhamdulillah (All praise be to God), the people of the Arabian Peninsula the descendants of Ishmael have received a holy revelation (The Qur’an) commanding them to believe in the one God of Abraham; and has instructed them to live in a righteous and peaceful manner!

So, Muslims believe that God did establish a covenant with Isaac; however, as we can see the children of Israel (all but the remnant) went astray. Now We want to know about the messenger that received this revelation, and is it possible that there is text in the Bible itself that could relate to the advent of such a messenger or be interpreted itself as such?

Tampering of the text of the book of Genesis by idle and jealous hands.

First thing to understand is that that the Jews do not have a monopoly on understanding and interpreting the Tanach. There is another group known as the Samaritans and they have strong charges against the Hebrew Masoretic text. They, the Samaritans also keep the Torah and they have given strong evidence of editorial changes.

Samaritan Torah

Before we proceed further, we need to understand that there are parts of the narrative of the events between Hagar, Sarah, Ishmael, Isaac and Abraham that simply do not add up. In fact if as recommended you saw the article on Genesis chapter 3 that will become abundantly clear.

Isaac was never Abraham’s only son. In fact Ishmael was born before him.

Then He said, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” (Genesis 22:2)

Christians and Jews have tried to rescue the text by focusing on: “whom you love” by trying to argue that Isaac was the only son whom Abraham loved. There is nothing from the text to substantiate this. In fact quite the opposite.

“And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before you!” (Genesis 17:18)

This is a clear attempt to write Ishmael out of the picture and the promise that God had given unto him.

Some odd and conflicting text in the book of Genesis:

“Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael.” (Genesis 16:16)
“Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.” (Genesis 21:5)

“Early the next morning Abraham got some bread and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. Then, placing the child on her back, he sent her away…” (Genesis 21:14)

The NAB footnote reads:

“Placing the child on her back: a reading based on an emendation of the traditional Hebrew text. In the traditional Hebrew text, Abraham put the bread and waterski on Hagar’s back, while her son apparently walked beside her. In this way the traditional Hebrew text harmonies the data of the Priestly source, in which Ishmael would have been at least fourteen years old when Isaac was born; compare 16:16 with 21:5, cf. 17:25. But in the present Eulogist (?) story, Ishmael is obviously a little boy, not much older than Isaac; cf. vv. 15, 18.”

Contradictions in the narrative: What is the reason that Sarah mistreats Hagar and asked her to be sent into the wilderness?

Now this is all told according to the vantage point of Sarai or so we are told to believe. At one point Sarah says that once Hagar realizes her station and standing has changed that perhaps she becomes haughty. Again, nothing from Hagar shows this, it is the perception of Sarai. Yet we are giving a very different story in another chapter. Rather than a pregnant Hagar showing scorn towards Sarai and that being the reason that Hagar is sent away we have a different narrative. In this narrative the reason for Hajar being sent away is that we now have s much older Ishmael

“When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress. Then Sarai said to Abram, “You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my slave in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the Lord judge between you and me.” (Genesis 16:4-5)

“Then Sarai mistreated Hagar; so she fled from her.” (Genesis 16:6)

“The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, and she said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.” (Genesis 21:9-10)

One other point to add concerning this early narrative is the following text:

“And Abraham said, “My son, God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering.” So they went both of them together.” (Genesis 22:8)

Christians will see an allusion to Jesus in the statement: “God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering.” There are a number of problems with this. The whole purpose of Abraham to offer up his son was to show his submission to God, and not as a sin offering. Secondly Jesus was never a holocaust offering. The Christians do not believe that Jesus was given as burnt offering. Finally, as you will hear ussay over and over we can get all this sorted out once we sort out Genesis chapter 3 and the very incorrect and incoherent theology that Christians have in regard to it.

The greatest prophecy in the Torah. Deuteronomy 18:18

“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18)

Note: The above-mentioned prophet is not mentioned by name.

“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18)

Now it is very clear that neither the name Yeshua (יֵשׁוּעַ) or Mahamad(מַחֲּמַדִּ֑ים) are in the above text.

Christians will give justifications for why this text is a reference to Yehsua (Jesus). We will give justifications for why this text is a reference to Mahamad (Muhammed).

You, the reader, be the judge.

Reasons Why Deuteronomy 18:18 does not refer to Jesus.

#1. If Jesus is God, his words would be his own not put in his mouth.

#2. Moses got married and Jesus did not get married.

#3. Moses had a law -the Torah. Jesus gives no law. Christians teach the law is a curse.

#4. Moses was conceived naturally and Jesus had a miraculous birth.

#5. Moses overcame his enemies and Jesus was handed over to his enemies.

#6. Jesus would not be the literal son of God if he was a prophet like Moses.

#7. Jesus never claimed to be the prophet like unto Moses.

Paul claims that Jesus was not like Moses.

Paul undermines Deuteronomy 18:18 by telling us how Jesus is not like Moses.

“Therefore, holy brothers and sisters, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession; He was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was faithful in all His house.For He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by just so much as the builder of the house has more honor than the house.For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.Now Moses was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken later;but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house—whose house we are, if we hold firmly to our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end.” (Hebrews 3:1-6)

This passage is a carefully constructed argument that establishes Jesus’s superiority over Moses, not his similarity. The structure is deliberate and devastating for the claim that Jesus is “like Moses” in the sense required by Deuteronomy 18:18.

  • Moses was a servant in the house.
  • Jesus is a Son over the house.
  • The builder of the house has more honor than the house itself.

The prophecy does not promise someone “greater than Moses”; it promises someone “like Moses.”

The Gospel of John informs us how Jesus is not like Moses.

“Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘HE GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.’” Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven and gives life to the world.” Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”  Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; the one who comes to Me will not be hungry, and the one who believes in Me will never be thirsty.(John 6:31-35)

  1. John has Jesus explicitly demote Moses: “It was not Moses who gave you the bread.”
  2. John has Jesus elevate himself: “I am the bread of life.”
  3. The contrast is not “similarity” but “replacement”: Moses provided physical manna; Jesus is the true bread. That is not a “like” relationship; it is a “replacement” relationship.
  4. John has Jesus claim a role Moses never claimed: Moses never called himself the bread of life. That claim is categorically different from being a prophet like Moses.

ACCORDING TO PETER IN ACTS 3:19 DEUTERONOMY 18:18 WAS NOT FULFILLED IN JESUS

Christians say that Jesus fulfilled all these prophecies in the ‘Old Testament‘ yet many of them understand that Jesus did not fulfil what was expected of him. Some say that half of the prophecies still await fulfilment. In fact the great prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:18 has YET TO BE FULFILLED according to the book of Acts.

The Acts 3 Argument: Why Deut. 18:18 Cannot Be “Fully” Fulfilled in Jesus

In Acts 3:19 we read:

“Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out. When the time of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began (he must stay until this prophecy is fulfilled) for Moses truly said unto the fathers, a prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren like unto me; Him shall you hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. (That prophet like unto Moses, Deuteronomy 18:18), And all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. You are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, and IN THY SEED SHALL ALL THE KINDRED OF THE EARTH BE BLESSED.”- in reference to (Genesis 21:13)

The ‘time of refreshing’ according to Christians who follow the view of the idea of a Millennial kingdom is that Israel is in a way holding up the train. No repentance =no refreshing…=no 2nd coming of Jesus. In other words Jesus will not return until after repentant Israel acknowledges Him as their Messiah.

This is all ironic considering that many of these Zionist Christians are supportive of Israel and it’s oppression of the Palestinians (both Christian-Muslim). By continuing to support Israel with their hard earned money and putting their allegiance to Israel over their allegiance to their country they ironically continue to bolster Israel and make it haughty and proud. Did the thought ever occur to them that if they abandoned Israel (with money and support) that Israel may find itself broken and therefore have no choice but to to Jesus and repent and accept him as Messiah, which in turn ushers in his reign?

In fact, The New American Bible says the following in its footnote of Acts 3:22:

“A loose citation of DT 18:15 which teaches that the Israelites are to learn the will of Yahweh from only their prophets. At the time of Jesus, some Jews expected a unique prophet to come in fulfilment of this text. Early Christianity applied this tradition and text to Jesus and used them especially in defense of the divergence of Christian teaching from traditional Judaism.”

As we can see according to Deuteronomy 18:18 still awaits fulfilment!

  1. Christians claim Deut. 18:18 (“a prophet like Moses”) is about Jesus.
  2. Peter, in Acts 3:19-24, explicitly quotes Deut. 18:18 and ties it to the “times of refreshing” and the “restitution of all things”  events that Peter says are future and will only happen when Jesus returns from heaven.
  3. Therefore, even by Christian admission, the full scope of Deut. 18:18 has not yet been accomplished in Jesus’ first coming.
  4. If the prophecy remains partially unfulfilled, then logically, one of two things must be true:
    • Option A: Jesus is the prophet, but he failed to complete the mission in his first coming, so he must come back to finish it (the Christian “two-staged” defense).
    • Option B: Jesus is not the prophet described in Deut. 18:18, because the prophecy describes a single figure who completes the entire mission (law-giving, leadership, conquest) in one lifetime—just like Moses did.

If the prophecy required a “second coming” to be completed, then the prophecy was not fulfilled in Jesus’ lifetime. And if it was not fulfilled in his lifetime, why should we believe he is the final Prophet like Moses, rather than a forerunner to someone else who did complete it?

Why the Christian “Two-Staged” Defense Fails The Logical Test

  • Moses did not need a “second coming” to complete his mission. Moses completed his prophetic role fully. He delivered the law, led the people, and died.
  • If Jesus is the “Prophet like Moses,” then according to the pattern, he should complete his entire prophetic mission in his lifetime, just as Moses did. He should not need to “return” to finish what he started.
  • The fact that Jesus must return to fulfill the judgment and restoration aspects of Deut. 18:18 proves that he does not fit the Mosaic pattern of a prophet who completes his mission in one historical lifetime.

This argument is devastatingly simple: If Jesus is the Prophet like Moses, why does he need a second coming to do what Moses did in one lifetime? The very need for a “second coming” is an admission that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecy the first time.

A very important aspect of the prophecy awaits, ‘that all the kindred of the Earth will be blessed ‘. This is not going to happen if during Jesus ‘2nd coming’, he is going to be judge, jury, and executioner.

According to Christians when Jesus returns there will be condemnation and judgment.

This Jesus is portrayed as blood thirsty warmonger who says things like:

“And these enemies of mine who were unwilling for me to rule over them, bring them here and kill them right in front of me.”-Jesus (Luke 19:27)

“He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.” (Revelation 19:13)

It is very clear that Christians await a second coming of Jesus because they feel he has unfinished business. However, in Islam there is nothing that Jesus needs to do that was not already accomplished by the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw). Unfortunately the vast majority of Muslims believe that Jesus (as) will return and they believe in these estachological views in a way similar to Christians. 

However, in our school and as we have shown. Jesus is dead and he will not return.

The way will the kindred of all the earth be blessed by the seed of Abraham is through his line from Ishmael to the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) and the message of Islam.

Conclusion.

Therefore, the very need for a second coming is an admission that Jesus did not fulfill Deuteronomy 18:18 in his first coming. The prophecy remains unfulfilled, and Muhammed who completed his mission in one lifetime fits the description perfectly. Rather then the Earth awaiting Jesus who comes in a robe of blood and a sword in hand the kindred of the Earth continue to be blessed by the guidance and teachings of Islam.

According to the New Testament the Jews in the time of Jesus were awaiting 3 distinct individuals.

If what the New Testament says is true concerning Jewish expectations then it represents a sort of collective belief that they had. Presuambly beliefs they inherited from their learned people. In this collective belief the Messiah, Elijah and ‘That Prophet’ are three distinct individuals.

Answer: No!

We read the following: John 1:19-21, 25

“And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, ‘Who are you?’ And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, ‘I am not the Christ.’ And they asked him, ‘What then? Are you Elijah?’ And he said, ‘I am not.’ ‘Are you the Prophet?’ And he answered, ‘No.’ And they asked him, and said to him, ‘Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?'”

Three questions were asked:

1. I am not the Christ.

2. Are you Elias? And he said I am not.

3. Are you That Prophet? And he answered, “No.”

And they asked him, and said unto him, why baptize then if you be not the Christ, nor Elias, neither That Prophet? “

According to those text the Jews were waiting for three distinct persons.

1) They were looking for the Messiah (Christ)

2) They were looking for Elias

3) They were looking for That Prophet (That prophet, notice, is not a personal name.)

We also know that…

1) The Christ (Messiah) became Jesus.

2) That Elias was later revealed to be John the Baptist.

3) However, we are still looking for That Prophet. Which is distinct from the Christ (Messiah)

The Argument in light of the above information.

 The Jewish leaders did not believe “The Prophet” and “The Messiah” were the same person. They were expecting two separate figures. This is confirmed by their question: “Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” They clearly understood these to be three distinct roles/persons.

Why This Strengthens The Case for Muhammed (saw).

  1. Christians claim Jesus is both the Messiah and “The Prophet” like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:18).
  2. However, the Jewish leaders in John’s Gospel, who were experts in the Hebrew Scriptures, they did not equate “The Prophet” with “The Messiah.” They expected two separate figures.
  3. If the original audience of the Hebrew Scriptures understood “The Prophet” of Deuteronomy 18:18 to be a distinct figure from the Messiah, then the Christian claim that Jesus fulfilled both roles is an interpretive innovation, not a straightforward reading of the text.

The Christian Gospels themselves are the source of this information. This is not a Muslim claim about what Jews believed; it is a New Testament claim about what the Jews were expecting. It is for the Christian to reflect if the New Testament represented the Jewish position correctly.

Conclusion: “The Prophet” of Deuteronomy 18:18 remains unfulfilled in Jesus. The Jewish leaders were right to expect a distinct figure, a prophet like Moses who would come and deliver a new law, lead a people, and establish a nation. That prophet was Muhammed.

To us, we believe that if Jew or a Christian with a sincere heart were to read a Seerah (a history of the life of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed) they would see clearly where the Prophet Muhammed (saw) was foretold in the Old Testament. 

As concerning Christ Jesus as a Muslim the Qur’an validates our belief in him.  If we had only the data of the New Testament to validate our belief that Christ Jesus was foretold in the Old Testament that belief would be completely shattered.

The New Testament records a very difficult and strange interaction between prophet Jesus and prophet John.

“For he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.” (Luke 1:15)

“After Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee. When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?” Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.” (Matthew 11:1-5)

There are lots of issues with this:

  1. John is a Prophet. He is filled with the Holy Spirit (even before he is born). Why does the Holy Spirit not know who Jesus is? How can a Prophet from God not recognizes another Prophet from God?

 2. Why does Jesus inform John about things he (John) already heard? It is like this: John was informed Jesus performed a light show. So John wants to know if Jesus is a Prophet of God. So Jesus says, ‘Tell him I preformed a light show’. Isn’t John already aware of this?

“When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messiah.”

“Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.” 

Basically go back and inform John about things John is already informed about! What?

3. Why does Jesus give information to John that could also be true of a false messiah?

“For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Matthew 24:24)

How does Jesus feel that this information would be convincing to John?

Jesus is essentially saying to John: “I am the Messiah because I perform miracles.” But Jesus also warns that false messiahs will perform miracles. Therefore, miracles are not a reliable test of prophetic authenticity. John, being a prophet, should have known this. Why would Jesus offer a test that even Jesus himself says is unreliable?

It is very obvious that much to keen eyes that much of the information in the New Testament is convoluted.

Addressing the single biggest objection to Deuteronomy 18:18 being a reference to Muhammed (saw).

The objection is that Muhammed (saw) cannot be a prophet like Moses because the text says: “from among their brothers.” They take that to mean that Muhammed (saw) has to be an Israelite.

How do Torah believing Jews translate the text?

“I will set up a prophet for them from among their brothers like you, and I will put My words into his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him.”

Source: (https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9982)

However, notice the deception in some Christian translations.

“I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him.”

Source: (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018%3A18&version=NIV)

The NIV inserts “fellow Israelites” to force an ethnic interpretation that is not present in the Hebrew text. This is a clear example of translational bias, where the translator’s theological presuppositions override the literal meaning of the text.

Where is the word Israelites at in the Hebrew?

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/deuteronomy/18-18.htm

The fact that “brethren” can mean non-Israelites in other contexts means it could mean non-Israelites in Deuteroromy 18:18.

There is a clear contradistinction between children of Israel and brethren.

The Hebrew phrase miqirbəkha literally means “from your midst” or “from within your proximity.”

In Deuteronomy 17:15, the same phrase is used: “you may indeed set over you a king whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your brethren (miqirbəkha me’akhekha) you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.”

In Deuteronomy 17:15, the “from among your brethren” clearly means ethnic Israel because the verse explicitly excludes a foreigner. But in Deuteronomy 18:18, there is no such exclusion. The text simply says “from among you” without specifying ethnic boundaries. If there was a large Jewish community in Medina at the time of Muhammed (as there historically was), then Muhammed could be said to have come “from among” the people of Israel. Not as an Israelite himself, but from within their midst geographically and socially.

“Brethren” can include non-Israelites.

“Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing with which his father had blessed him, and Esau said in his heart, ‘The days of mourning for my father are approaching; then I will kill my brother Jacob.” (Genesis 27:41)

This establishes that “brother” can refer to a non-Israelite descendant of Abraham (Edomites are not Israelites.

“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herders and mine, for we are (achim) brothers.” (Genesis 13:8)

Lot is Abraham’s nephew, not his brother, and the Moabites and Ammonites (Lot’s descendants) are non-Israelite nations.

Notice the deception with the NIV translation.

“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herders and mine, for we are close relatives.” (Genesis 13:8 NIV)

Soure: (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2013%3A8&version=NIV)

“Do not detest an Edomite, because he is your brother.” (Deuteronomy 23:7)

This is a direct command to consider an Edomite (a non-Israelite, descendant of Esau) as a brother.

Therefore, when Deuteronomy 18:18 says God will raise up a prophet from “among your brethren,” it cannot automatically mean “an Israelite.” The Torah itself defines “brethren” in a way that includes at least one non-Israelite group (Edomites).

If Edomites are brethren, then Ishmaelites (descendants of Abraham’s firstborn son) are even more obviously brethren.

“Brethren” (aḥim) is not synonymous with “children of Israel”.

“And they shall bring all your brethren (aḥeichem) for an offering unto the Lord out of all the nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the Lord, as the children of Israel (bənei yisra’el) bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord.” (Isaiah 66:20)

The Distinction:

  • “Your brethren” (aḥeichem) = The group being brought from the nations.
  • “The children of Israel” (bənei yisra’el) = The group making the offering.

The “brethren” are not the same as “the children of Israel.” They are being brought to the children of Israel. If they were the same group, the text would be redundant: “They shall bring all the children of Israel as the children of Israel bring an offering.” That makes no sense. The distinction is clear: the “brethren” are a separate group from the children of Israel.

Here the difference between Children of Israel and brethren is shown.

“But over your brethren the children of Israel (aḥeihem bənei yisra’el), you shall not rule one over another with rigor.” (Leviticus 25:46)

The Distinction:

  • “Your brethren” (aḥeihem) = The broader kinship group.
  • “The children of Israel” (bənei yisra’el) = The specific ethnic/national group.

The text defines “your brethren” more specifically as “the children of Israel” in this context. But notice: it does not say “your brethren are the children of Israel” as a general rule. It says “your brethren the children of Israel” in this specific context. The fact that the phrase needs to be specified shows that “brethren” is not automatically synonymous with “children of Israel.” If it were, the specification would be unnecessary.

Conclusion.

  • The immediate context does not explicitly define “brethren.” It assumes it.
  • Even if the context suggests Israelites, the word “brethren” itself is broader. The text does not say “children of Israel.”
  • If the text meant “children of Israel,” it would have said so. The fact that it chose “brethren” leaves the door open.

So, in light of this, the Deuteronomy 18:18 passage would have said Children of Israel and not Brethren.

This is why the deception with the NIV was so deceptive in it’s translation.

Final thoughts.

We ask the sincere reader: If Christians can see Jesus in passages that do not mention his name and that, when read in context, clearly refer to something else then is it not reasonable for Muslims to see Muhammed (saw) in passages that describe a prophet like Moses? We have shown that Deuteronomy 18:18 does not exclude a non-Israelite prophet, that the New Testament itself records Jewish expectations of a distinct ‘Prophet,’ and that Jesus himself by Christian admission has not yet fulfilled the full scope of the prophecy. The one who completed the Mosaic pattern in a single lifetime was Muhammed (saw).

Christians apply an inconsistent hermeneutic to the Old Testament. They read Jesus into passages where his name does not appear (Psalm 22) while ignoring passages that damage their theology (Psalm 51). They accuse Muslims of reading Muhammed (saw) into the text while doing the same thing themselves. They insert “fellow Israelites” into Deuteronomy 18:18 when the Hebrew says “brethren.” They claim Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of the prophet like Moses while admitting he must return to finish the job.

The Islamic alternative is compelling: Deuteronomy 18:18 describes a prophet like Moses who completes his mission in one lifetime. He brings law, leadership, conquest, and natural death. That prophet is Muhammed. The reader is invited to reflect on this with an open heart.

You may also be interested in the following:

Ahmad predicted by Jesus. An honest inquiry.
Genesis chapter 3 separates Islam and Christianity.
The Way of Life that existed before Christianity and Judaism.
The Mercy, Love and Forgiveness of Allah

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 12, 2026 · 1:02 am

Ahmad predicted by Jesus. An honest inquiry.

“And when Jesus, son of Mary, said: O’ children of Israel, surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being AHMAD. But when he came to them with clear arguments, they said: This is clear enchantment.”(Qur’an 61:6)

﷽ 

This text of the Qur’an has either been a means where Christians have tripped themselves up; or it has been a huge eye opener, one that has led many of them to embracing Islam.

So when dealing with Christians concerning this text you will find those who fall into one of two categories.

A) Those who are insincere and think this text of the Qur’an is some how a problem for Muslims.

B) Those whom are sincerely inquiring into the matter and willing to ponder over the justifications that are given.

The first very obvious point is that this text of the Qur’an no where said that Ahmad is written in any competing number of Christian New Testament canons. The text states: “And when Jesus, son of Mary, said:

Often those Christians antagonistic to Islam read the above text of the Qur’an and think that a Muslim should reply: “Oh yes that is in Matthew chapter so and so verse so and so.”

There is nothing in Qur’an 61:6 that would indicate that the name ‘Ahmad’ would be captured in any of the competing Christian New Testament canons

This would be similar to the text of the New Testament:

“And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: “He shall be called a Nazarene.” (Matthew 2:23)

The reason why Christians have not been able to find that particular prophecy is because the above text said it was: ‘spoken’ by the prophets not necessarily that it was written by the prophets.

Archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom offers a possible perspective.

This Archbishop of the Latin Roman Catholics/Eastern Orthodox Christians offers an interesting perspective.

“We see here the cause why the angel also, putting them at ease for the future, restores them to their home. And not even this simply, but he adds to it a prophecy, That it might be fulfilled, says he, which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. Matthew 2:23.”

“And what manner of prophet said this? Be not curious, nor overbusy. For many of the prophetic writings have been lost; and this one may see from the history of the Chronicles. For being negligent, and continually falling into ungodliness, some they suffered to perish, others they themselves burnt up and cut to pieces. The latter fact Jeremiah relates; Jeremiah 36:23 the former, he who composed the fourth book of Kings, saying, that after a long time the book of Deuteronomy was hardly found, buried somewhere and lost. But if, when there was no barbarian there, they so betrayed their books, much more when the barbarians had overrun them. For as to the fact, that the prophet had foretold it, the apostles themselves in many places call Him a Nazarene.” -Archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom

Source: (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200109.htm)

Thus, if what Archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom says of ‘The Nazarene’ is true than it is likewise that this could be the case for ‘Ahmad’. Namely:

“For many of the prophetic writings have been lost; and this one may see from the history of the Chronicles. For being negligent, and continually falling into ungodliness, some they suffered to perish, others they themselves burnt up and cut to pieces.”

This argument merely demonstrates that the absence of “Ahmad” from the New Testament does not disprove the Qur’anic claim.

Did Jesus ever write anything?

They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. (John 8:6-8)

The assumption is that Jesus (as) wrote what he spoke: “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Yet, we have no idea what he wrote the second time.

Not only this but may Allah (swt) reward brother Ammar in the comments section. He had reminded me that even the text that alleges Jesus (as) wrote something in the sands is a forgery.

This is taken from a Christian website:

https://www.gotquestions.org/John-7-53-8-11.html

The story is a clear forgery. Wasn’t found in the 4th century manuscripts.

The New Testament also mentions that Jesus said things that were not recorded.

“After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. ” (Luke 2:43-46)

Luke does not record any questions that Jesus asked! So this is clear evidence that there are indeed things that Jesus said that are not captured nor recorded by the New Testament.

Since Jesus (as) didn’t really write anything it makes sense we wouldn’t find anything written concerning “Ahmad”. And even if he did write something, we have no evidence it was preserved.

 However, note the above text does state that Jesus (as) said:

“Oh children of Israel, surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad.” (Qur’an 61:6)

This is more than sufficient for those who believe. Allah (swt) said that Jesus (as) said it and that is enough for the Muslims. 

We are not required to go beyond this. ⬆️⬆️⬆️

Though, for those Christians who are sincere we will endeavor to give them some things to reflect over.

What you are about to read is simply food for thought for those inquiring into the matter.

The New Testament teaches that Jesus never claimed to be the last Prophet. 

Jesus (as) never claimed to be the last prophet. That admission in and of itself already is an argument in favour of our proposition. It does not necessarily prove it; however it is a point in favour of our proposition.

Think about this. When other Christian denominations get into debates and discussions with Mormons (The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints) they never shut down the Mormons with saying: “Well, Joseph Smith can’t be a Prophet because Jesus said there would be no more.” If that were so the matter would be an open and shut case.

This is a significant point in favour of the Islamic position.

If Jesus never claimed to be the last prophet, then:

There is no theological barrier to another prophet coming after him. Nothing in Jesus’s teaching rules this out.

First, Jesus himself didn’t shut down the possiblity of true prophets or even other messiahs coming!

“For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Matthew 24:24)

Jesus could have closed the door by stating, “there will be no Messiah after me”. He didn’t. He could have said, “There will be no prophet after me.” He didn’t.

The New Testament gives many examples of prophets who came after Jesus.

Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a lifelong friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. (Acts 13:1)

And Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, encouraged and strengthened the brothers with many words.” (Acts 15:32)

“And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.” (Acts 21:10)

What has passed is more than sufficient to answer the objections of those who attack the Qur’an 61:6. We can see that the Qur’an says that it was something that Jesus (as) spoke and it doesn’t say it was written. We can also see that the New Testament does not have a definite statement about Jesus (as) being the last prophet. 

However, for those Christians who like to reflect we will present more information to reflect upon.

Discussing the Identiy and the Prophecy of the Comforter/Advocate.

Why does the identify of the Comforter need clarification?

Now notice something about this text in John 14:26. Notice that the identity of The Comforter seems to be a matter of ambiguity. This ambiguity is followed up by the clarification: ‘Which is the Holy Spirit’

Now to be clear of the Greek manuscripts that we currently know about John 14:26 is read as: “The Comforter, Which is the Holy Spirit.” We are saying this in the interest of transparency and not to over state the case.

However, the very presence of this clarification suggests that the identity of the Paraclete was not self-evident to the original readers. If the meaning were obvious, no clarification would be needed.

What we are going to present is justification to show that this is a scribal insertion. As you can read the text on the left is quite intelligible without the addition ‘which is the Holy Spirit‘.

Some Early Church Fathers saw the possibility of the Paraclete being a reference to a human being.

The Montanists professed to be prophets and to speak under divine inspiration. Their founder, Montanus, claimed to be the Paraclete, the “Comforter,” or Helper, of John, chapter 14. Tertullian became a Montanist before he died.”

Source: (Edgar J Goodspeed How Came The Bible pg. 67.)

Eusebius explicitly states that some “boasted that Montanus was the Paraclete”

Prima Qur’an Comment: Tertullian and Monatanus were early church fathers who played a crucial role in the development of the New Testament text Christians have today. So if such learned men saw the possibility of the Paraclete referring to a human being then who are we to say?

The Christians will claim thath Montanist did not claim that Montanus himself was the Paraclete. Instead,
they believed the Holy Spirit spoke through Montanus and his prophetesses. As one can see from the comments with a Christian below there are debates on rather Montanist theology was monolithic. Sources note distinctions between Monarchian and non-Monarchian Montanist.

“The enemy of God’s Church, who is emphatically a hater of good and a lover of evil, and leaves untried no manner of craft against men, was again active in causing strange heresies spring up against the Church. For some persons, like venomous reptiles, crawled over Asia and Phrygia, boasting that Montanus was the Paraclete, and that the women that followed him, Priscilla and Maximilla, were prophetesses of Montanus.” Source: Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History volume 5 chapter 14

Source: (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm)

“Christian tradition has identified this figure (Paraclete) as the Holy Spirit, but scholars like Spitta, Delafosse, Sasse, Bultmann, and Betz have doubted whether this identification is true to the original picture and have suggested that the Paraclete was once an independent salvific figure, later confused with the Holy Spirit.”

Source: (The Anchor Bible, 1970, Volume 29A, p.1135)

“The Paraclete is a parallel figure to Jesus himself; and this conclusion is confirmed in the fact that the title is suitable for both. It is clear from 14:16 that the source thought there were sending of two Paracletes, Jesus and his successor, the one following the other”

Source: (The Gospel of John a Commentary, Rudolf Bultmann, p. 567)

The word Paraclete is used in the New Testament to refer to a human being

“My little children, these things write I unto you, that you sin not and if any man sin, we have an advocate (Parakleton) Παράκλητον with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous) (1st John 2:1)

Note: The first time the word Paraclete is used is in reference to a man, Jesus.

Jesus (as) mentions that the Paraklete will be like him -and not unlike him.

“If you love me, keep my commandments, and I will pray for the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter (allon Parakleton) ἄλλον Παράκλητον, that HE may abide with you forever.” (John 14:15-16)

‘Another‘- the Greek word Allon means another of the same kind.

The ‘allon Parakleton‘ means in addition to himself another messenger, not heteros, another of a different kind!

If Jesus (as) meant a comforter of a different kind he would have used the Greek word heteron meaning-another of a different kind. The Greek word heteron is where we get the word heterosexual.

An example of the Greek word heteros being used.

“I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ another (heteron) ἕτερον gospel.” (Galatians 1:6-9)

(Here the Greek word another (heteron) is another of a different kind.)

A derivative of the word Paraclete is also used to reference a human being.

“Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which is translated as “son of encouragement (parakleseos)” (Acts 4:36)

This is such a very curious text that is full of obfuscation. So we have an individual named Joseph, which is being called ‘Barnabas’ by the apostles. Which in turn is being translated as: The son of encouragement [Parakleseos].

Does the Holy Spirit hear and speak?

“I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when HE, the Spirit (Pneuma)Πνεῦμα of truth comes HE will guide you into all truth: (HOW?) For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (akousei) ἀκούσει that shall HE speak (lalesei) λαλήσει and HE will show you things to come.” (John 16:12-13)

HEAR– The Greek verb (akousei) means to perceive audible sounds.

SPEAK-The Greek verb ; (lalesei) means to speak, to emit sounds.

So this HE has to be able to hear audibly and tell verbally.

The two Greek words Akousei and Lalesei refer to a concrete being with speech organs.

Recall the following text:

” But the Spirit itself (auto) αὐτὸ itself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” (Romans 8:26)

Ask a Christiain does the Holy Spirit speak? Ask him (The Holy Spirit) to speak then!

Does (John 16:12-13) apply to the Holy Spirit? No!

A) Shall not speak of Himself.

B) Whatso ever He shall here is what he will speak.

This cannot be a reference to the Holy Spirit as Christians understand it.

The Qur’an is the created speech of Allah and and the Blessed Prophet (saw) is the mouthpiece of this created speech.

“By the star when it goes down your companion is neither astray nor being misled, nor does he say of his own desire. It is no less than an inspiration sent down to him: He was taught by one mighty in power.” (Qur’an 53:1-5)

Another point is if we reflect upon the above text it presents problems for Christian theology.

“For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (akousei) ἀκούσει that shall HE speak (lalesei) λαλήσει and HE will show you things to come.”

How would the speech of the Spirit be different than the speech of the Father in essence?

Why would the Holy Spirit need to be told what to say when his knowledge is the same as the knowledge of the father in essence?

Remember Christians cannot use the fully deity/full man argument like they can for Jesus. The Holy Spirit does not have two natures as the Dyophysitist (majority of Christianity) claim about Jesus.

So the text of (John 16:12-13) does not necessarily need to be about a man. However, it is equally not possible for it to be about the Holy Spirit-at least not as Christians today understand it.

Say, “Whoever is an enemy of Gabriel should know that he revealed this to your heart by Allah’s Will, confirming what came before it—a guide and good news for the believers.” (Qur’an 2:97)

Angel Gabriel hears from Allah and speaks to the prophets. This is exactly what angels do: they receive and deliver messages. Gabriel is a created being who hears the command of Allah.

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity has historically struggled with the subordination question. The text of John 16:13 seems to imply a subordinate figure. A figure who hears and speaks, who receives rather than originates. This fits Gabriel perfectly.

Jesus (as) constantly refers to the Paraclete as ‘He’ and not ‘It’.

When one goes back and looks at all the text Jesus consistently used the masculine pronoun ‘He’, however, Spirit in Greek is used in the neuter gender which could be he, she or simply it.

lLet us look at various translations of John 1:32.

Notice that the King James version translates the neutral gender as ‘it’ where as in the New King James version they switch it to ‘He’. The other versions also make it masculine gender as ‘He’, or ‘himself’. The New International Version is the best translation remaining non committal in the gender specification.

“Likewise the Spirit also keeps our infirmities: For we know not what we should pray for as we ought: But the Spirit itself (auto) αὐτὸ itself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” (Romans 8:26)

The above passages show the Holy Spirit as neuter gender which means passages can translate the Holy Spirit as She, He, It.  Whereas it is clear that the Paraklete is only referenced as ‘He’. 

Recall the point about Jesus calling the Paraklete as (allon Parakleton) ἄλλον Παράκλητον

Another of the same kind, the same genus. The Holy Spirit can be her, him, or it. Jesus is not reference as ‘her’ or it’.

Another reason why (The Comforter, Which is the Holy Spirit) is a scribal insertion.

The New Testament claims Jesus must go away in order for the Holy Spirit to come.

Jesus (as) is reported to make the following claim:

“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, The Comforter (Parakletos)Παράκλητος will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send HIM unto you.” (John 16:7)

Yet, the same New Testament clearly shows The Holy Spirit concurrent with Jesus.

So Jesus has to depart in order for this Paraklete to come. Based upon this admission the Paraklete cannot be not the Holy Spirit!

The reason why the Paraklete cannot be the Holy Spirit is because Jesus (as) was around when he was around. Ample text make this abundantly clear.

“And the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him.” (Luke 3:23)

(Jesus didn’t have to go anywhere!)

“And Jesus being full of the Holy Spirit returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness.” (Luke 4:1)

(Again Jesus and Holy Spirit are present together.)

“Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father sent me, So I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit.” (John 20:21-22)

(Jesus didn’t go anywhere!)

“ For he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.” (Luke 1:15)

John was filled with the Holy Spirit before he was even born, which is unlike Jesus who had to receive the Holy Spirit after baptism. The point being John (being filled with the Holy Spirit) was around Jesus.

(Jesus didn’t go anywhere!)

So all these text prove that this Paraklete cannot by the Holy Spirit as Jesus (as) has been around when the Paraklete has been around. 

However, Jesus (as) mentions that he needs to go in order to come. This is also an indirect proof that Jesus (as) is dead and not like some have imagined that he is alive in the heavens.

Conclusion.

Jesus departing. These texts are explicit and have proven to be a problem for Christians. The only thing
the Christian can do is to say that the Muslims do not understand these texts. Then the Christian only offers an interpretation of what is obviously clear text. 

If the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit, then Jesus was wrong to say the Paraclete would only come after his departure. Either the text is inconsistent, or the identification is incorrect.

John 16:12-13 Does this refer to a Prophet to come or the Spirit of Truth?

“I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when HE, the Spirit (Pneuma)Πνεῦμα of truth comes HE will guide you into all truth: (HOW?) For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (from God) that shall HE speak: and HE will show you things to come.” (John 16:12-13)

So a Christian may object that this can be a reference to a Prophet because the word spirit is clearly used. However, that is because the word ‘spirit’ is being used as a metonymy for a Prophet. It has been used in the following verse in such a way:

“Beloved believe not every SPIRIT (pneumati) πνεύματι , but try the SPIRITS (pneumata) πνεύματα whether they are of God: Because many false PROPHETS are gone out into the world. Hereby know you the SPIRIT of God: Every SPIRIT that confessed that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God:” (1 John 4:1-6)

So you can see that Spirits/Prophets are used interchangeably. So that objection is answered.

However, Muslims can be charitable and agree that this does indeed refer to the Holy Spirit.

Al-Rūḥ Al-Amīn (Trustworthy Spirit)mentioned in the Qur’an.

“‘Which the trustworthy spirit brought down into your heart so that you may be one of the warners.” (Qur’an 26:193-194)

“Say, “The holy spirit has brought it down from your Lord with the truth to reassure the believers, and as a guide and good news for those who submit.” (Qur’an 16:102)

Jesus claims that neither he nor the Bible guide you into all truth.

“I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when HE, the Spirit (Pneuma)Πνεῦμα of truth comes HE will guide you into all truth: (HOW?) For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (from God) that shall HE speak: and HE will show you things to come.” (John 16:12-13)

This means The Bible alone does not contain all truth. It is only a partial revelation at bests and awaiting the Spirit of Truth and his guidance.

By admission Jesus is not guiding you into all truth. There is one who comes after him that does this.

This creates a problem for the Protestant: If the Spirit guides into all truth, then the Scripture can’t be the only infallible authority.

This creates a problem for Catholics/Orthodox: If the Church (tradition) is the vehicle of the Spirit’s guidance, then the Church’s authority is self-referential and circular.

This is circular because:

  1. The Church’s authority depends on the Bible
  2. The Bible’s authority depends on the Church
  3. Neither can independently validate the other

One thing that the Holy Spirit has never guided the Church on.

Here is a major point that the according to the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, The Roman Catholics, the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, the Baptist that the Holy Spirit has never guided any of them on.

You see the above Christian groups will tell you that God is one being in three persons. That these three persons are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They will tell you that the name of the son is Jesus. They will tell you that the name of the Father is Yahweh. But they will never tell you what the name of the Holy Spirit is. Why is that?

Why can they give us the name of the Father and the name of the Son but not the name of the Holy Spirit?

We can put Christian claims to the test in real time.

“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:  For every one that ask receives; and he that seeks shall find; and to him that knocks it shall be opened.” (Matthew 7:7-8)

So to any Christian on Earth. from any denomination. ask the Holy Spirit to reveal his name to you then. There is not justifiable reason why he shouldn’t.

Christian objections to some Muslim claims.

Now given that some Muslims use (John 16:12-13) as a reference to the coming of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) we will look at some of their ojections and see what is a sound Christiain objection and what is not a sound objection.

1st Christian objection.

“The Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.” (John 14:17)

It cannot be said that Prophet Muhammed (saw) will live inside anyone. This is unless we use some strained metaphor about his teachings living inside of us. However, it is best not to be like the Christians who use truly strained readings of their text. So this is a sound Christiain objection.

However, the above text is contradicted by the following:

“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, The Comforter (Parakletos)Παράκλητος will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send HIM unto you.” (John 16:7)

The Holy Spirit can’t both live with the disciples and be present in their midst and Jesus also needs to depart from the disciples in order to send the Holy Spirit. This is not adding up.

The New Testament does not record Jesus baptizing any of his disciples.

““I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Matthew 3:11)

Again, Jesus can’t be baptizing anyone with the Holy Spirit especially if it is expedient that he (Jesus) goes away.

The text of the Bible contradict the position of the Orthodox Church.

“In the Mystery of Chrismation (Gr. chrismatis, “anointing”), the newly baptized Orthodox Christian receives the Holy Spirit through anointing with oil by the bishop or priest. From the earliest times, the Church practiced Holy Chrismation immediately following Baptism. This same practice held, whether the newly baptized was an adult or an infant. Western churches (like Roman Catholics and Anglicans), in contrast, usually reserve Baptism and Chrismation for those who reach “the age of reason”.

Source: https://www.saintjohnchurch.org/receiving-the-holy-spirit/

“Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. (John 4:1-2)

So were these disciples unbaptized and performing baptism? If they were baptized why didn’t they receive the Holy Spirit then and there?

Not only this but why isn’t anyone asking the obvious. Where in the hell did the idea of baptism even come from? None of the Old Testament prophets were ever baptized for the forgiveness of sins. The practice is completely alien to the Tanach. Christianity is not in continuity with the Old Testament teachings at all.

2nd. Christian objection.

“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all (πάντα καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα) that I have told you.” (John 14:26)

First notice the need for clarity. The Comforter, the Holy Spirit. So would we know that the Comforter is the Holy Spirit without the text giving this clarifying remark?

That being said Muhammed (saw) did not come in the name of Jesus. Why would he? So that part is problematic.

What is not problematic is that this Comforter will remind them of what Jesus told them.

This means that there would be some lapse in regard to what Jesus taught. Ironically that would include this very passages in which Jesus is supposed to clarify the role of the Comforter as well as it’s identify.

πάντα καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα

The Greek word hypomnēskō unequivocally means “to remind.” It presupposes a lapse in memory.

Source: (https://biblehub.com/greek/upomne_sei_5279.htm)

A reminder is only necessary if something has been forgotten. If the disciples perfectly remembered everything Jesus taught, the Comforter’s role of “reminding” them would be redundant. Therefore, the text logically implies that:

  1. Some of Jesus’s teachings were lost or forgotten.
  2. The Comforter would come to restore or bring back what was lost.

If the Comforter needed to “remind” the disciples, then some teachings were at risk of being lost. This undermines the idea of a perfectly preserved tradition.

The Gospel of John itself (John 21:25) states: “There are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

This is a clear admission that the Gospel accounts are selective, not comprehensive.

If the Gospel writers themselves admit that they did not record everything Jesus did or said, then the Comforter’s role of “reminding” becomes even more significant: the Comforter will restore what was not recorded, ensuring the essential teachings were not lost.

The text of John 14:26 is an admission that:

  • Jesus taught more than what is recorded.
  • The disciples were at risk of forgetting what he taught.
  • The Comforter would bring back what was lost.

This is exactly what Allah (swt) says:

“And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that which they were reminded. So we caused amonghtem animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 5:14)

3rd. Christian objection.

“Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.” (John 16:7)

“But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: (John 15:26)

The Christian objection is sound. Why would Jesus be the one to send the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw). However, as we saw from (John 14:26) it is the father who will send not Jesus. So which is it?

4th Chrisitan objection.

“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever.” (John 14:16)

The problem comes from the word ‘forever’. The Christian will object and ask if the advocate is a reference to the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) how is he with the believers forever?

This is answered by a number of ways.

“To the roots of the mountains I went down, to the land whose bars closed upon me forever. Yet you brought up my life from the pit, O Lord my God.” (Jonah 2:6)

Jonah was not literally in the land of the dead forever; “forever” means for an extended, indefinite period.

“I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” (Matthew 28:20)

Jesus is not physically present but Christians could say they feel his presence or that his teachings live on with them. The same can be said of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw).

It seems rather strange that the other Gospel writers have no mention about this coming Paraklete. Lastly, their remains some curiosity in the retention of the word Paraclete in the Hebrew and Aramaic translations.

The Qur’an 61:6 and the use of a type of literary device to that would be akin to an enthymeme.

“And when Jesus, son of Mary, said: O’ children of Israel, surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being AHMAD.” (Qur’an 61:6)

Do you ever wonder why the verse does not say: ”Giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being MUHAMMED?”

Muhammed comes from the triconsonantal Semitic root H-M-D.

The spelling of the word is different but the meaning is the same.

  1. Jesus (as) did not speak Arabic and so what ever he did say would be in Hebrew or Aramaic and not Greek nor Arabic.
  2. What ever prophecy Jesus (as) made would either be ‘Ahmad’ or the equivalent of it’s meaning.
  3. Allah (swt) by using the word ‘Ahmad’ instead of the word ‘Muhammed’ has given us a type of enthymeme by which those interested can investigate the matter. That is to say it is possible that the scribes

“But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places (yuharifuna l-kaima ‘an mawadi’ihi) and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others).” (Qur’an 5:13)

What may have been the word in Hebrew or Aramaic?

In the above text we can see the word transliterated as: Mahamaddim. They have translated the word as description ‘lovely.

In the Orthodox Jewish Bible they have put the transliterated word as: Machamaddim and have translated it as: (altogether desirable)

Source for the the text below: (https://www.biblestudytools.com/ojb/shir-hashirim/5.html)

Again a different translation this time we get: “wholly desirable” and we can see that the is a masculine noun pronounced as Machmad. The word origin for this is chamad.

By the way do yourself a favour and copy those Hebrew words and put them in Google translate and listen to how they sound.

Notice that the word in Hebrew is to be desired, delighted in, to covet, to be pleased with, and than look at the Arabic equivalent that they give! With its meaning to praise to eulogize.

Look at the Arabic word that they give.

This in and of itself is not a proof, but it is an intriguing piece of evidence that may point to a preserved remnant of the original prophecy.

May Allah (swt) open the eyes and hearts of those who are sincere.

For further reading on topics in relation to Christianity you may want to read the following:

Genesis chapter 3 separates Islam and Christianity.
The degenerate and disgraced Christians who attacked Islam and Muslims.
The Way of Life that existed before Christianity and Judaism.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

17 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 2, 2026 · 6:54 pm

Miscellaneous Subjects

“Alif-Lãm-Mĩm” (Qur’an 2:1)

﷽ 

This section will be miscellaneous information on a wide range of topics. This section does not necessarily reflect the views or attitudes of either the Ibadi school or adherents of the school.

Do note some links are broken. We are in the process of restoring those links.

Allah willing we will continue to update this section and organize it accordingly as well:

THE MERCY, LOVE AND FORGIVENSS OF ALLAH

The Mercy, Love and Forgiveness of Allah

INSPIRATIONAL SHORT CLIPS ABOUT ISLAM TO INSPIRE, MOTIVATE AND CAUSE REFLECTION

Inspirational short clips about Islam to inspire, motivate and cause reflection.

MINI GALLERY AT SULTAN MASJID SINGAPORE

https://primaquran.com/2024/01/24/mini-gallery-at-sultan-mosque-singapore/

THE QUR’AN NEVER INDICATES THAT THE MAJORITY ARE UPON THE TRUTH-EVER.

Does the Qur’an state that the majority are believers and grateful?

ADVISE TO NEW MUSLIM CONVERTS/REVERTS

Advise for new Muslim converts/reverts

CONVERT MUSLIM WOMAN IS ASKED PERSONAL QUESTION(S) BY HER FIANCEE.

Convert Muslim woman is asked personal question by her Fiancée.


THE VALUE OF THE PRAYER IN ISLAM

The Value of the Prayer in Islam

WHY DO WE AS MUSLIMS FACE TOWARDS THE KAABA?

https://primaquran.com/2023/04/01/why-do-we-as-muslims-face-towards-the-kaaba

KHIMAR (HEAD COVERING) IS AN INJUNCTION WITH IN THE QUR’AN

Khimar (Head Covering) is an injunction with in the Qur’an.

WHERE IN THE QUR’AN DOES THE TESTIMONY OF A WOMAN OVER RULE THAT OF A MAN?

https://primaquran.com/2024/06/24/where-in-the-quran-does-the-testimony-of-a-woman-over-rule-that-of-a-man

BLOWING ON KNOTS: SAVING MUSLM MARRIAGES.

Blowing on Knots. Saving Muslim Marriages

REDUNDANT REVELATION? THE QUESTION OF POLYGYNY IN ISLAM

Redundant Revelation? The Question of Polygyny in Islam

THE HYPOCRISY OF BID’I TALAQ: INNOVATED DIVORCES WEIGHED AGAINST THE WISDOM OF THE QUR’AN

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/05/the-hypocrisy-of-bidi-talaq-innovated-divorces-weighed-against-the-wisdom-of-the-quran

ISLAM TEACHES JUSTICE NOT EGALITARIANISM

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/islam-teaches-justice-not-egalitarianism/

SAME SEX MARRIAGES IN LIGHT OF THE QUR’AN

Same Sex Marriages in light of the Qur’an.

APOSTASY.

Those who left Islam.

WILL OIL EVER REALLY RUN OUT?

Will Oil Ever Really Run Out?

THE DINOSAURS NEVER EXISTED?

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/the-dinosaurs-never-existed

THE MEN WHO NEVER BECAME MUSLIMS: THE CASES OF DR. KEITH MOORE & DR. MAURICE BUCAILLE.

https://primaquran.com/2023/01/19/the-men-who-never-became-muslims-the-cases-of-dr-keith-moore-dr-maurice-bucaille/

SUNNISM, IMAMI SHI’I, ZAYDI ARE THEIR PROMOTION OF SUPERIOR BLOOD LINES, CLANS, AND TRIBES BASED UPON THE QUR’AN AND SUNNAH?

TRIBALISM AND ISLAM

Tribalism and Islam

BUT THEY ARE DESCENDANTS OF PROPHETS

But they are descendants of Prophets!

THE IBADI VIEW: BEING FROM THE QURAYSH IS NOT NECESSARY FOR LEADERSHIP

The Ibadi view: Being from the Quraysh is not necessary for leadership.

THE IBADI SCHOOL REFUTES THE CLAIMS OF ARAB SUPERIORITY.

The Ibadi school refutes the claims of Arab superiority.

AFTAB MALIK: THE BROKEN CHAIN-PREPERATION FOR ARAB RACIAL SUPERIORITY IN ISLAM?

https://primaquran.com/2025/01/23/aftab-malik-the-broken-chain-preparation-for-arab-racial-superiority-in-islam/

SOME SHI’A VIWES ON THE ORIGINS OF BLACK PEOPLE

Some Shi’i views on the Origin of Black People: Blatant Racism

WHO EVER SAYS THE PROPHET IS BLACK KILL HIM

Who ever says the Prophet was black is killed!

DOGS ARE PURE IN ISLAM, ACCORDING TO THE QUR’AN

Dogs are pure in Islam, according to the Qur’an.

DASTARDLY BOWL LICKING DOGS AND THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF SOME MUSLIMS

https://primaquran.com/2020/09/12/dastardly-bowl-licking-dogs-and-the-thought-process-of-some-muslim

MATTER: THE OTHER NAME FOR ILLUSION.

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/05/matter-the-other-name-for-illusion/

ATHEISM BETWEEN LAWRENCE KRAUSS AND ELON MUSK.

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/atheism-between-lawrence-krauss-and-elon-musk/

KETO, PRIMAL, VEGAN, VEGETARIANISM & ISLAM

https://primaquran.com/2023/05/04/keto-primal-vegan-vegetarianism-islam/

ALIENS, UFO’s, THE JINN & ISLAM

Aliens, UFO’s, The Jinn & Islam

THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE WAS BETRAYED BY DESCENDANTS OF PROPHET MUHAMMED (SAW)

The Ottoman Empire was betrayed by the so called descendants of Prophet Muhammed (saw).

COLLECTION OF ARTICLES ON SUFISM

Tazkiyah al-Nafs/ Sufism /Tasawwuf

SHAYKH HAMZA YUSUF: COLLECTION OF ARTICLES

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/shaykh-hamza-yusuf-collection-of-articles/

THE QUR’AN IS SUBLIME.

The Qur’an is sublime. Understanding 18:79-81

DHUL AL-QARNAYN: THE NOTHINGBURGER

Dhul al-Qarnayn: The nothingburger

THE QUR’AN AND THE SETTING OF THE SUN IN A MURKY SPRING

The Qur’an and the Setting of the Sun in a Murky Spring

NOTHING CAN CHANGE THE WORDS OF ALLAH.

Nothing Can Change the Words of Allah

THE SO CALLED SATANIC VERSES: (QISSA GHARANIQ-THE STORY OF THE INTERMEIDARY CRANES)

https://primaquran.com/2024/10/26/the-so-called-satanic-verses-qissa-gharaniq-the-story-of-intermediary-cranes/

CLAIMS OF APOCRYPHAL SOURCES IN THE QUR’AN?

Claims of apocryphal sources in the Qur’an?

QUR’AN CONTRADICITON? WHAT BURDENS DO WE BEAR?

Qur’an contradiction? What burdens do we bear?

ABU LAHAB: WEAK ARGUMENT UESD BY MUSLIMS TO PROVE ISLAM

https://primaquran.com/2024/05/24/abu-lahab-weak-argument-used-by-muslims-to-prove-islam/

WILL THE DAJJAL BE A PERSON?

https://primaquran.com/2024/10/28/will-the-dajjal-be-a-person/

THE MUSLIM WORLD LEAGUE DAJJAL LOGO: IN NEED OF BETTER OPTICS?

https://primaquran.com/2024/08/14/the-muslim-world-league-dajjal-logo-in-need-of-better-optics/

DO WE THINK ITS WEIRD THAT SAUDI ARABIA PUT A STATUE (IDOL) OF THE MORNING STAR (VENUS) OR SATAN JUST NORTH OF MEDINA?

https://primaquran.com/2024/09/29/do-i-think-its-weird-that-saudi-arabia-put-a-statue-idol-of-the-morning-star-venus-or-satan-just-north-of-medina/

OUR THOUGHTS ON PUBLIC DEBATES

Should Muslims debate Jews and Christians?

IBADI TRADERS OF BILAD AL-SUDAN -JASON VAN RIEL

The Ibāḍī Traders of Bilād al-Sūdān -Jason van Riel

AL-ISTIQAMA INSTITUTION FOR QUR’AN & ITS SCIENCES IN LIBYA

Al-Istiqama Institution for Qur’an & Its Sciences in Libya

ISTIQAAMA MUSLIM ORGANISATION GHANA

https://primaquran.com/2025/01/05/istiqaama-muslim-organisation-ghana/

NEITHER SHIA NOR SUNNI: AN INERVIEW WITH A MOZABITE

https://primaquran.com/2024/02/05/neither-shia-nor-sunni-an-interview-with-a-mozabite-anthony-t-fiscella/

DR. KHALID ABDULLAH TARIQ AL-MANSOUR: INTELLECTUAL JUGGERNAUT AND TREASURE OF THE UMMAH.

https://primaquran.com/2024/12/29/dr-khalid-abdullah-tariq-al-mansour-intellectual-juggernaut-and-treasure-of-the-ummah/

SULAYMAN IBN DAWUD IBN BASAID IBN YUSUF A PAN ISLAMIST IBADI SCHOLAR.

https://primaquran.com/2024/11/13/sulayman-ibn-dawud-ibn-basaid-ibn-yusuf-a-pan-islamist-ibadi-scholar/

THE SCHOLARS OF ISLAM: BETWEEN BLIND ALLEGIANCE AND UNGAURDED DISDAIN

https://primaquran.com/2025/01/07/the-scholars-of-islam-between-blind-allegiance-and-unguarded-disdain/

G.I JOE A REAL AMERICAN HERO

https://primaquran.com/2023/09/27/g-i-joe-a-real-american-hero/

ACCORDING TO THE IBADI SCHOOL: SMOKING IS HARAM

According to the principles of the Qur’an smoking is Haram.

PRAGMATIC VIEW ON MUSLIM UNITY IN THE FACE OF A COMMON FOE- BY USTADH SHIBLI ZAMAN

https://primaquran.com/2024/01/11/pragmatic-view-on-muslim-unity-in-the-face-of-a-common-foe-shibli-zaman/

MUSLIMS SHOULD BOYCOTT STARBUCKS IN SPITE OF PALESTINE (INCLUDING MADHKALIS)

https://primaquran.com/2023/11/16/muslims-should-boycott-starbucks-in-spite-of-palestine-including-madhkalis/

4D CHESS? SHOULD PALESTINE JOIN THE ZIONIST ENTITY?

https://primaquran.com/2023/11/14/4d-chess-should-palestine-join-the-zionist-entity/

WHAT ARE THE SIGNS THAT WE HAVE FAITH?

What are the signs that we have faith?

TWO AI BOTS HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE IBADI SCHOOL.

Two AI bots have a conversation about the Ibadi school.

Insh’Allah this will continue to be updated. Allah-willing.

THE FOUR TYPES OF PUNISHMENTS EVERY MUSLIM SOULD BE AWARE OF.

The four types of punishments every Muslim should be aware of.

WHAT DOES SHAYKH UTHMAN IBN FAROOQ REALLY BELIEVE? MURDERERS AND RAPIST GOING TO HEAVEN?

What does Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq really believe? Murderers and Rapist going to heaven?

MONOTHEISM (TAWHID) ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR HIS DEEDS TO BE ACCEPTED.

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

HEAVEN IS FOR THE RIGHTEOUS SOLEY! -HIS EMINENCE SHAYKH MASOUD AL-MIQBALI.

Heaven Is For The Righetous Solely! – His Eminence Shaykh Masoud Al-Miqbali

WHO KNEW THE DREAM BETTER? IBN AL-ARABI VS PROPHET IBRAHIM (AS) -AND WHY MUSTAFA AKYOL GETS IT WRONG.

Who Knew the Dream Better? Ibn al-Arabi vs. Prophet Ibrahim (as) – and Why Mustafa Akyol Gets It Wrong.

THE QUESTION OF SLAVERY & MILK AL YAMIN IN ISLAM.

The Question of Slavery & Milk Al Yamin In Islam.

WHY HAJJ IS SO IMPORTANT IN ISLAM. WHY MUSLIMS SHOULD NOT DELAY THE HAJJ. SHAYKH HATIM & FIRDAUS AZIZ.

Why Hajj is so Important in Islam. Why Muslims should not delay the Hajj. Shaykh Hatim & Firdaus Aziz

THE VIRTUE OF THE FIRST TEN DAYS OF DHU AL-HIJJAH.

The virtue of the first ten days of Dhu al-Hijjah

ARE MUSLIMS TO DRINK CAMEL URINE?

Are Muslims to drink camel urine?

The WAY OF LIFE THAT EXISTED BEFORE CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM.

The Way of Life that existed before Christianity and Judaism.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 21, 2026 · 2:04 am

What does Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq really believe? Murderers and Rapist going to heaven?

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

﷽ 

Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq doing what he does best which is giving the Daw’ah on the streets of America. Cannot underscore how important this is. Calling people to Islam IS the work of the Prophets. It is the best way. It is a collective obligation upon the Muslims. So may Allah (swt) continue to bless Shaykh Uthman in that regards.

However, equally important is to call them to the Qur’an and Sunnah. To call them to sound doctrine.

Listen to the interaction in the video above:

Shaykh Uthman says: “Let me ask you a question o.k? If you don’t accept Jesus can you go to heaven?”
The woman replies, “No.”

Shaykh Uthman says, ‘O.K Let me ask you a scenario, right?” “And, and so. There’s a girl doesn’t believe in Jesus. Let’s say she’s Hindu right? 14,15, 18 year old girl, and a man, a Christian man rapes and murders her. Rapes her cuts her up cuts her throat but he believes in Jesus. Who goes to heaven?”

Woman inquires, “She does not believe in Jesus?”  Shaykh Uthman reiterates: “She does not believe in Jesus.”

The woman states: “If she has not like received or trusted (Shaykh Uthman inputs “yes”) due to the fact (unintelligible).”

Shaykh Uthman says, “She does not believe in Jesus she’s Hindu.”

The woman responds: “Than she is eternally separated from (unintelligible)”

Shaykh Uthman says, “she’s gonna go to hell, and he, the murderer, rapist is gonna go to heaven?” “You guys, you guys I can’t believe your telling me this. I cannot believe you’re saying this. And I’m really sad.” “You’re saying that rapist, murderer is gonna go to heaven and the poor innocent girl that got raped and murdered is gonna go to hell, going to be separated from hell/heaven and go to hell!?”

The woman responds: “She doesn’t know the Lord, yes.”

Shaykh Uthman responds: “That is that is you can’t believe that?!”

However, what would his response be if someone asked him, “What would your response be if a Muslim did that?”

What is the Shaykh response to his belief if this rapist/murderer was a Muslim?

Now for the Christian who likes to speak about the justice of God Shaykh Uthman’s question does present a conundrum for them. Now the more learned Christian may try and reply using the following text:

“For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.” (Jude 1:4)

But the point still stands. No one is saying that grace is a license for immorality; however, this Christian man in a moment of passion being weak in the flesh raped this woman and killed her. However, according to the Christian woman’s reasoning that man will go to heaven.

Now, the best Shaykh Uthman can do is say that the Muslim rapist and murderer will take a detour to hell (for an unspecified period of time) however, he too enters heaven.

Now what would have made this more interesting is if it was asked what happened if the murderer/rapist died immediately after the incident (as a Christian/ as a Muslim). The Christian response has been given. However, the Muslim response?

You may wish to read the following:

The Ibadi View on Muslims Who Commit Major Sins Without Repentance
Heaven Is For The Righetous Solely! – His Eminence Shaykh Masoud Al-Miqbali
Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq: “If you pray with your hands down, your salah is still acceptable.”

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

April 23, 2026 · 9:06 pm

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

“And give full measure when you measure out, and weigh with a true balance; this is fair and better in the end.” (Qur’an 17:35)

﷽ 

The Asymmetry No One Talks About

When Christian apologists attack the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw), they have an enormous body of material to work with. They cite the sīrah (biography), the ḥadīth (sayings and actions), and the maghāzī (campaign literature). From his first revelation at age 40 to his death at approximately 63, that is roughly 23 years of public prophetic activity. Even if one includes his life before prophethood, from age 25 (his first marriage to Khadījah-ra) to 40, that adds another 15 years of documented context. In total, critics have 35+ years of recorded material to analyze, critique, and polemicize.

But what about Jesus?

Most Christians have never stopped to ask a simple question: How many actual words attributed to Jesus are even in the New Testament? And more importantly: How much of Jesus’s life is actually recorded?

This article is not an argument for Islam. It is an argument for intellectual honesty. The comparison Christian apologists make between Jesus(as) and Muhammed (saw) is not balanced — not because Islam/Christianity is true/false, but because the evidentiary basis for each figure is radically different.

The Raw Data – How Many Words of Jesus Actually Exist?

According to a detailed analysis from synopticgospel.com, the total number of words attributed to Jesus Christ in the four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) is 31,426.

But that number includes duplicate material. The same speeches and parables appear in multiple Gospels. Once you exclude the duplication of Jesus’s speeches across the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), the total unique words drop significantly.

If you enter 31,426 words into a standard “Convert Words to Minutes” speech calculator, you find that it would take approximately 242 minutes — or about 4 hours — to read all of Jesus’s words aloud.

That is the sum total. Four hours of reading. That is everything Jesus is recorded as saying in the four Gospels.

Beyond the Gospels – Jesus’s Words in the Rest of the New Testament

Most Christians assume the Gospels are where Jesus speaks. That is correct. But what about the rest of the 27-book New Testament canon (the one accepted by Latin Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and most Protestants)?

Here is the complete inventory of words attributed to Jesus outside the four Gospels.

Acts of the Apostles

Acts 1:4-8 – The risen Jesus commands the apostles to wait for the Holy Spirit.

Acts 9:4-16 – Jesus appears to Saul (Paul) on the road to Damascus: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” and subsequent instructions to Ananias.

Acts 11:16 – Peter recalls Jesus’s words: “John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 18:9-10 – Jesus speaks to Paul in a vision at Corinth: “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking… I am with you.”

Acts 20:35 – Paul recalls a saying of Jesus not found in the Gospels: “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”

Acts 22:7-10 – Paul’s retelling of the Damascus road experience.

Acts 22:18-21 – Jesus tells Paul to leave Jerusalem: “Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.”

Acts 23:11 – Jesus stands by Paul: “Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.”

Acts 26:14-18 – Paul’s third retelling, with additional detail: “It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”

1 Corinthians

1 Corinthians 11:24-25 – The institution of the Eucharist: “This is my body… This cup is the new covenant in my blood.”

2 Corinthians

2 Corinthians 12:9 – A saying of Jesus to Paul: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”

Revelation

Revelation 1–3 – The risen Christ speaks to the seven churches: “I am the Alpha and the Omega… Write to the angel of the church in Ephesus…” (approximately 20-30 verses of direct speech).

The Rest – Complete Silence

The following New Testament books contain zero direct words attributed to Jesus:

  • Romans
  • Galatians
  • Colossians
  • Ephesians
  • Philippians
  • 1 Thessalonians
  • 2 Thessalonians
  • 1 Timothy
  • 2 Timothy
  • Titus
  • Philemon
  • Hebrews
  • James
  • 1 Peter
  • 2 Peter
  • 1 John
  • 2 John
  • 3 John
  • Jude

That is 19 books out of 27 with absolutely no direct quotation of Jesus.

The 27-Book Canon – A Closer Look

It is worth remembering that the 27-book New Testament was not the only canon in early Christianity. There were rival Christian communities with 22-book New Testaments and others with 35-book New Testaments. The canon we have today is the result of debates, disputes, and eventual ecclesiastical decisions.

But even granting the 27-book canon as authoritative, the fact remains:

  • Only 8 books contain any direct words of Jesus: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, and Revelation.
  • 19 books (70% of the New Testament by book count) have no words of Jesus in them at all.

Most Christians never stop to think about this. They assume the New Testament is full of Jesus speaking. In reality, the vast majority of the New Testament is written about Jesus — not by him, and not quoting him.

The 90% Problem – Jesus Lived 33 Years. We Have 3.

According to Luke 3:23, Jesus began his public ministry when he was “about thirty years old.” Traditional dating places his birth at approximately 4 BC and his crucifixion around AD 30 or 33. That gives him a lifespan of roughly 33 years.

His public ministry — the period from which we have any recorded words at all — lasted approximately 3 years.

3 years out of 33 = approximately 9% of his life.

That means 91% of Jesus’s life is completely silent in the New Testament.

  • From birth to age 12: one brief episode in the temple (Luke 2:41-52).
  • From age 12 to age 30: absolute silence. Nothing. No words. No actions. No teachings.
  • From age 30 to 33: roughly 4 hours of unique sayings (after excluding Synoptic duplicates).

Think about that. God incarnate, according to Christian theology, walked the earth for 33 years. The Christian record gives us only a handful of episodes from a 3-year window. The rest is silence.

Christian theology has an answer for this: the “hidden years” demonstrate Jesus’s full humanity, his ordinary life, his obedience. But that answer does not solve the historical or polemical problem. It simply explains why the silence is theologically acceptable.

For the purpose of comparing Jesus (as) to Muhammed (saw), the silence is not a theological virtue. It is an evidentiary void.

Age and Life Experience: The Unasked Question

There is another layer to this asymmetry that is almost never discussed: age. Jesus (as) died at approximately 33 years old. Muhammed (saw) died at approximately 63 years old. That is a 30-year difference. A full generation.

Now ask yourself: If Jesus had lived to 63 — if his public ministry had continued for another three decades beyond the brief three years recorded in the Gospels — how much more material would the New Testament contain? How many more sermons? How many more parables? How many more interactions with political authorities, with families, with enemies, with disciples who failed him? How many more decisions under pressure, more moments of moral complexity, more spoken words?

We cannot know, of course. The New Testament does not tell us. But that is precisely the point.

The Christian apologist who contrasts 23 years of prophetic activity (or 35+ years of documented adult life) with Jesus’s 3 years of public ministry is not comparing like with like. They are comparing a life cut short in its early thirties — a life whose longest documented period is measured in hours of speech — with a life that spanned more than six decades and produced enough literature to fill multiple volumes of hadith, sīrah, and tafsīr.

It is entirely possible that a 63-year-old Jesus would have said and done things that a 33-year-old Jesus did not. Perhaps he would have married. Perhaps he would have wielded political power. Perhaps he would have led what looked like military campaigns. Perhaps he would have said more things that later generations found morally uncomfortable. More so even than what we find today. We will never know. Because the claim is he died young. And the Gospels, as they exist, give us almost nothing from the first 30 years of his life and only a sliver from his final three.

To pretend that the silence of the New Testament is a moral or theological victory for Christianity — is to mistake absence of evidence for evidence of moral superiority. That is not scholarship. That is polemics dressed up as piety.

4 Hours vs. 35 Years – The Evidentiary Chasm

Now let us put the two figures side by side.

The dataJesus (canonical NT)Muhammed (sīrah, ḥadīth, maghāzī)
Public prophetic ministry~3 years~23 years (610-632 CE)
Total documented life~9% (3 of 33 years)~100% of prophetic period
Unique spoken words~4 hours of reading aloud possibly 2 hours without repetitions from the synoptics.Hundreds of thousands of ḥadīth (of various grades of authenticity)
Types of materialSayings, parables, miracles, passion narrativeSayings, actions, legal rulings, military campaigns, marriages, treaties, sermons, letters, economic decisions
Historical contextNarrow: rural Galilee, Jerusalem, Roman occupationBroad: Medinan state, marraiges, diplomacy, law, economics, community governance

When Christian apologists attack the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw), they have an enormous dataset. They can point to specific battles, specific marriages, specific political decisions, specific legal rulings, and specific moments of apparent moral failure — all dated, documented, and debated within Islamic tradition itself.

When Muslims (or anyone) try to respond symmetrically, they cannot. Not because Jesus was morally superior/inferior, but because the New Testament gives us almost nothing to work with outside a handful of sayings and a short public ministry.

The Christian Apologist’s Blind Spot

Here is the uncomfortable question this raises:

If your case against Muhammed (saw) depends on comparing his documented actions to Jesus’s silence, are you truly making a fair argument?

The Christian apologist will often say: “Jesus never married multiple women. Jesus never led raids. Jesus never owned slaves. Jesus never wielded political power.”

All of that is true — if we limit ourselves to the 3 years and 4 hours of material we have.

But the apologist rarely adds the necessary caveat: “And we have almost no information about what Jesus did or said for the other 30 years of his life.”

The comparison is not between two equally documented figures. It is between:

  • A man with 35+ years of dense, varied, politically and militarily detailed documentation (Muhammed), and
  • A man whose recorded words can be read aloud in an afternoon, and whose entire public ministry fits into a 3-year window (Jesus).

That is not a level playing field. It is not a fair comparison. And the Christian apologist who pretends it is has either not thought about the asymmetry or is deliberately ignoring it.

Conclusion – Not a Win, Just an Asymmetry

This article is not arguing that Christianity is false. It is not arguing that Islam is true. It is not even arguing that the Blessed Prophet Muhammwd was a better or worse prophet than Jesus.

It is arguing something much simpler — and much more uncomfortable for the Christian polemicist:

You cannot build a fair case against Muhammed (saw) by relying on a Jesus who barely speaks.

The New Testament is 90% silent about Jesus’s life. He spoke for approximately 4 hours of unique material over a 3-year public ministry. The rest of his 33 years are a blank slate.

The Islamic sources for the life of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) are vastly more detailed, more diverse, and more extensive. That gives the Christian apologist more material. It gives them more material because there is simply more material.

If the Gospels had recorded Jesus from age 12 to 30 — his words, his actions, his relationships, his work, his political views, his family life — the Christian polemic against the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) might look very different. Or it might collapse entirely. We will never know.

Because the New Testament is silent.

And that silence is not the Christian apologist’s ace in the hole. It is the very thing that makes the comparison impossible from the start.

A Note to Christian Readers

If you are a Christian reading this and feeling defensive, ask yourself honestly:

Would you want your case for Jesus to rest on a comparison with the Prophet Muhammed (saw) that requires ignoring 30 years of Jesus’s life and the thinness of the Gospel record?

Or would you rather admit: “We don’t have much from Jesus outside a short ministry. That doesn’t prove Christianity false. But it does mean comparing him to Muhammed (saw) on deeds and sayings is apples to oranges.”

That is all this article asks. Honesty about the data. Just a recognition that the scales are not balanced — and they never were.

May Allah Guide the Jews and the Chrisitians to the truth!

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 16, 2026 · 10:18 am

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

“O People of the Book! Now Our Messenger has come to you, revealing much of what you have hidden of the book and disregarding much. There certainly has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book. through which Allah guides those who seek His pleasure to the ways of peace, brings them out of darkness and into light by His Will, and guides them to the Straight Path. (Qur’an 5:15-16)

﷽ 

Henotheism is the worship of a single, supreme deity while acknowledging or accepting the existence of other, lesser gods.

Monotheism is the belief in the existence of only one god, or the oneness of God, distinguishing it from polytheism (many gods) and atheism.

The cypher of The Tetragrammaton revealed.

Tetra =4.

Gramma= letter.

Aton (Aten).

The Bible claims that their god used to be called ‘Baal’.

“And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal.’ (Hosea 2:16)

Ba’al (בעל) is the most commonly used in modern Hebrew for husband.

“Eluzai, Jerimoth, Bealiah, Shemariah and Shephatiah the Haruphite…” (1 Chronicles 12:5)

Bealiah which means Jehovah is Baal.

However, because the name Baal had become so associated with the Canaanite deity, there becomes a prohibition that commands Israel to stop using that title for Him altogether . This also proves that Israelites were using the same name for their God prior to this prohibition.

Barnes’ notes on the Bible has the following:

“God says, “so wholly do I hate the name of idols, that on account of the likeness of the word Baal, “my Lord,” I will not be so called even in a right meaning, lest, while she utter the one, she should think on the other, and calling Me her Husband, think on the idol.”

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

Think of it like this. Maybe there was a woman married to a man named Thomas. This woman received a divorce from Thomas. Now this woman is married to you and your name happens to also be Thomas. So, during intimacy, it is possible that you would not want her to call out your name as it could be awkward.

In the Qur’an Allah (swt) has never once been identified with Baal.

In fact, the two are contrasted and never conflated.

“When he said to his people, “Will you not fear Allah ?”Will you call upon Baal and forsake the Best of Creators.” (Qur’an 37:124-125)

The Bible portrays Jesus as a rebelious son who went away from Elyon (God) and sacrificed to Baals and burned incense to images.

Hosea 11:1-2 in context says:

“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more they were called, the more they went away from me.They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.” (Hosea 11:1-2)

The Qur’an presents clear monotheism.

“Allah! There is no god except Him, the Ever-Living, All-Sustaining.” (Qur’an 2:255)

Say, He Allah is Absolute.
That which is independent of all but which all things are dependent upon.
He does not bring for like kind nor was he from like kind
And there is no equivalent to His being Absolute. (Qur’an 112:1-4)

This powerful surah is absolutely uncompromising.

We need to explain the reasons why we translate the text as we do.

Say, He Allah is Absolute.

We make a crucial distinction that most English translations obscure. Wāḥid appears throughout the Qur’an (e.g., 2:163, 5:73, 14:48) and means “one” in a numerical, countable sense. Aḥad, by contrast, appears in this surah and carries a different weight.

  • Wāḥid = one as opposed to two or more (quantitative oneness)
  • Aḥad = absolute, unique, singular without composition or peer (qualitative oneness)

Our translation of Aḥad as “Absolute” is therefore more precise than “One,” which conflates Aḥad with Wāḥid. The standard “One and Only” tries to bridge this but still leans on number. “Absolute” correctly captures the mode of oneness rather than the count.

On Al-Ṣamad. That which is independent of all but which all things are dependent upon.

Standard translations (“Eternal,” “Absolute,” “Self-Sufficient,” “The Uncaused Cause”) each capture one facet. Our full clause—“That which is independent of all but which all things are dependent upon”—is arguably the most complete English rendering possible. It combines:

  • Negative theology (not dependent on anything)
  • Positive theology (all depend on Him)
  • Causal primacy (uncaused cause)

Implication: This is not a liability but an advantage. It sacrifices brevity (the Arabic Ṣamad is one word) but gains clarity. For a translation intended for study rather than liturgical memorization, this is defensible.

Why we do not render the text as “begets not nor is begotten”. He does not bring for like kind nor was he from like kind.

  • If Allah came from something else (was begotten): He would share a genus with that something else (both would be “things that originated from a prior cause”).
  • If something like Him came from Allah (begets): That something would share a genus with Allah (both would be “beings that produce likenesses”).

Either scenario destroys absoluteness. A truly absolute being has no genus. Genus implies shared properties, limitations, and comparability. An absolute being is sui generis in the literal sense: of its own kind.

Therefore, “does not bring for like kind nor was he from like kind” is theologically superior to “begets not nor is begotten” because:

  • It explicitly targets category membership, not biological process.
  • It avoids the English word “beget,” which confuses modern readers.
  • It closes the door on Neoplatonic emanation (where lower realities come from higher ones “like kind” in a chain of being) as well as Christian Trinitarian generation.

Implication: Our translation is a more universal negation of ontological continuity between Allah and creation than the conventional one. It addresses Christianity, Neoplatonism, certain Hindu cosmologies (e.g., prakriti giving birth to purusha-like realities), and any emanationist or filial model.

And there is no equivalent to His being Absolute.

Absoluteness is a maximal property. If two things were both absolute, each would limit the other’s absoluteness (each would fail to be absolute relative to the other). Absoluteness entails uniqueness necessarily, not accidentally.

Our final line—“no equivalent to his being absolute”—thus correctly implies that the property itself cannot be instantiated in any other subject. The property is self-uniquifying.

It is clear that Islam is monotheistic.

This is unlike the bible where someone could become like the God (Elyon) or like the deities in his assembly.

“And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.(Genesis 3:22-23)

“And the ETERNAL God said, “Now that humankind has become like any of us, knowing good and bad, what if one should stretch out a hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!” (Genesis 3:22) –Source: (https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.3.22)

It is interesting that the Jews at Sefaria have translated the text as the Eternal God was worried that Adam may eat from a tree that would give him the property of living forever. This would make him like ‘any of us’.

Paul being the henotheist that he is says:

“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many; yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.” (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish: in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.” (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

Paul concedes that there’s a “god of this world” separate from his god. He acknowledges that there are many gods. He just simply says that for him and his sect, they only worship one god, whom they call, ‘The Father’.

The TNCH or what the Christians call the Old Testament is replete with henotheistic passages. The Children of Israel went through different phases worshipping different gods at different times and even had a massive civil war over the matter.

You will notice when studying that the names of several deities names pop up time and again. These names are often conflated with the various other deities that the Children of Israel worshipped.

Perhaps the most damning evidence is as follows:

“When the Most High gave the nations thier inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel. For the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his alloted inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 32:8-9)

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

In the source above there is a note that states:

“Masoretic Text; Dead Sea Scrolls (see also Septuagint) sons of God.”

How does the New Revised Standard Version render the reading?

“When the Most High gave the nations thier inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the gods; For the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his alloted inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 32:8-9)

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

How did the transition from “bene Elohim” (sons of God) to “bene Yisrael” (sons of Israel) occur in Deuteronomy 32:8? The timing remains unknown. Whether this change took place during the intertestamental period or at the time of the text’s standardization around 100 AD — we simply do not know when it happened. But this much is certain: a scribe altered the text. Someone deliberately replaced “sons of God” with “sons of Israel.” The exact date of this change is unknown, but the fact that it occurred is beyond dispute. We know this because the Masoretic Text contains the altered reading, while the Dead Sea Scrolls preserve the original. And the Dead Sea Scrolls predate the Masoretic text by a full millennium. Israel is not even in existence when the nations are divided!

A scribe removed the three letters you see in green and added the two letters you see in red.

What does this mean?

Elyon was to be the god of Jacob and his people. The sons of Elyon. Or the other gods were to be for the other nations. In other words the main God (Elyon) divided Earth up among regional deities.

We see this in the following text:

“ Will you not possess whatever Chemosh your god gives you to possess? So whatever the Lord our God takes possession of before us, we will possess.” (Judges 11:24)

It mentions that Chemosh is the god of the Ammonites, just as Israel has their own god.

“You shall have no other gods before/beside me.” (Exodus 20:3)

“You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,” (Exodus 20:5)

“Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” (Exodus 34:14)

“You shall have no other gods before/beside me.” (Deuteronomy 5:7)

These text are not a denial of other gods or deities. In fact, the above text describe this god as a jealous god.

This understanding of jealousy is a complex, often unpleasant emotion stemming from fear, insecurity, or a perceived threat to a valued relationship or status. It arises when someone feels threatened by a rival.

The way the Bible portrays this jealousy its as if the god of the children of Israel is in a genus. Even though this god acknowledges that he is superior there is a sort of pathological jealousy at play here.

“God(Elyon) stands in the congregation of the mighty; he judges among the gods.” (Pslam 82:1)

This verse indicates a superior deity presiding over lesser beings. A god among gods.

The Qur’an never describes Allah as a god among gods. Rather it negates any other deity except him.

Insh’Allah we will come back to (Pslam 82:1)

There is an interesting connection between Moloch and the god that the Children of Israel worshipped.

“Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.” (Genesis 14:18-20)

Prima Qur’an Comments:

  1. Melchizedek is said to be a priest of God Most High, (Elyon). In other words the chief god.
  2. Melchizedek needs to clarify who the (Elyon) Most High is. He is the Creator of heaven and earth.

“The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek'” (Psalm 110:4)

Prima Qur’an Comments:

Notice that this does not identify or equate the priest as Melchizedek but that he would be priest in his order.

“Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.” (Hebrews 7:3)

Whoever wrote the book of Hebrews must have had some access to extra Biblical data about Melchizedek that we do not know about.

What is interesting is the word translated as Melchizedek: Righteous King can easily be translated as Righteous Moloch.

We also have the following interesting text.

“Adonizedek, the king of Jerusalem, heard that Joshua had captured and totally destroyed Ai and had killed its king, just as he had done to Jericho and its king. He also heard that the people of Gibeon had made peace with the Israelites and were living among them. The people of Jerusalem were greatly alarmed at this because Gibeon was as large as any of the cities that had a king; it was larger than Ai, and its men were good fighters. So Adonizedek sent the following message to King Hoham of Hebron, King Piram of Jarmuth, King Japhia of Lachish, and to King Debir of Eglon. (Joshua 10:1-3)

Adonizedek is an interesting name. It means Adon is Zedek. Adon (Aton/Aten) is Righteous.

However, it can also mean that Adon is Zedek. My Lord is Zedek.

(Moloch) is a god satiated by human suffering. In particular the sacrifice of innocent children.

He is a god of holocaust. However, anyone who is a Christian will understand a deity who is satiated through the suffering of children, in particular one of his own.

“A divinity worshipped by the idolatrous Israelites. The Hebrew pointing Molech does not represent the original pronunciation of the name, any more than the Greek vocalization Moloch found in the LXX and in the Acts (vii, 43). The primitive title of this god was very probably Melech, “king”, the consonants of which came to be combined through derision with the vowels of the word Bosheth, “shame”. As the word Moloch (A.V. Molech) means king, it is difficult in several places of the Old Testament to determine whether it should be considered as the proper name of a deity or as a simple appellative. The passages of the original text in which the name stands probably for that of a god are Lev., xviii, 21; xx, 2-5; III (A. V. I) Kings, xi, 7; IV (II) Kings, xxiii, 10; Isaiah 30:33; 57:9; Jeremiah 32:35. The chief feature of Moloch’s worship among the Jews seems to have been the sacrifice of children, and the usual expression for describing that sacrifice was “to pass through the fire”, a rite carried out after the victims had been put to death. The special centre of such atrocities was just outside of Jerusalem, at a place called Tophet (probably “place of abomination”), in the valley of Geennom. According to III (I) Kings, xi, 7, Solomon erected “a temple” for Moloch “on the hill over against Jerusalem”, and on this account he is at times considered as the monarch who introduced the impious cult into Israel. After the disruption, traces of Moloch worship appear in both Juda and Israel. The custom of causing one’s children to pass through the fire seems to have been general in the Northern Kingdom [IV (II) Kings, xvii, 17; Ezech. xxiii, 37], and it gradually grew in the Southern, encouraged by the royal example of Achaz (2 Kings 16:3) and Manasses [IV (II) Kings, xvi, 6] till it became prevalent in the time of the prophet Jeremias (Jerem. xxxii, 35), when King Josias suppressed the worship of Moloch and defiled Tophet [IV (II) Kings, xxiii, 13 (10)]. It is not improbable that this worship was revived under Joakim and continued until the Babylonian Captivity.”

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

“Aaron answered them, “Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me.” So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, “These are your gods,[b] Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.”  When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, “Tomorrow there will be a festival to the Lord.” So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry. Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt.  They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, ‘These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.’” (Exodus 32:2-8)

Prima Qur’an comments:

  1. Prophet Aaron is claimed to have made an idol in the shape of a calf.
  2. The people also said: These are your gods (plural) that brought you (Israel) out of Egypt.
  3. The god that is speaking to moses reaffirms the above two points. Especially: “These are your gods,Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.”

Notice the translation is not sure if the word should be gods or god. However, it is clarified in what was said to Moses by the god that spoke to him. The people were claiming gods (plural) brought them out of Egypt.

Is it not very odd that it is claimed a prophet and servant of the One True God who witnessed miracles would so quickly go and do something like this in the absence of his brother (Moses)?

No one seems to the object to the idea that gods (not god) brought them out of Egypt.

During the civil war of Israel the following happened.

“After seeking advice, the king made two golden calves. He said to the people, “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.”  One he set up in Bethel, and the other in Dan. And this thing became a sin; the people came to worship the one at Bethel and went as far as Dan to worship the other.” (1 Kings 12:28-30)

Jewish Rabbis have debates about what type of worship of Molech is acceptable and what is not.

The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 64a):

“HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, OR THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO PENALTY, UNLESS HE DOES BOTH.”

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

Observation: The rabbis are parsing the precise act that constitutes a capital offense. Both elements are required: (1) delivering to Molech’s priests, and (2) causing the child to pass through fire.

The Gemara Discussion:

“R. Abin said: Our Mishnah is in accordance with the view that Molech worship is not idolatry. For it has been taught, whether to Molech or to any other idol he is liable. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: If to Molech, he is liable; if to another idol, he is not.”

This is striking. Some rabbis consider Molech worship not to be idolatry — or at least different in kind from other idol worship. Why?

“R. Hanina b. Antigonus said: Why did the Torah employ the word Molech? To teach that the same law applies to whatever they proclaimed as their king, even a pebble or a splinter.”

Molech is not necessarily a specific deity — it is any deity to whom one transfers sovereignty (“king”) over oneself. The rabbis are working hard to define the boundary.

The Critical Question the Rabbis Are Avoiding

If a Jew offered his child as a burnt offering to Yahweh, would that be permitted?

The rabbis do not address this directly. But their silence is telling.

Jephthah in Rabbinic Literature:

The Talmud (Ta’anit 4a) and later rabbinic commentary do address Jephthah — and they are highly critical of him. The general rabbinic view is that Jephthah should have sought to annul his vow through a sage, and that his failure to do so resulted in tragedy. Some rabbis even say he was punished for his foolishness (losing parts of his body, dying unnaturally).

However — and this is crucial — the rabbis never say that what Jephthah did was inherently impossible or categorically forbidden. They criticize his failure to seek annulment, not the act of human sacrifice itself. They also note that his daughter (like Isaac) was willing.

The Nakdimon Connection

One of the most revealing texts appears in the Babylonian Talmud (Nedarim 37a) and is cited in the Soncino commentary on Sanhedrin 64a. Rabbi Dr. Freedman, the translator, notes:

“The offering of children to Molech was not regarded as ordinary idolatry, but as a distinct offence. One reason is that it involved the destruction of one’s seed — an act of cruelty which even pagans normally did not practice. Another is that it was sometimes done in the name of the Lord, as in the case of Jephthah.”

Read that again: “It was sometimes done in the name of the Lord, as in the case of Jephthah.”

The rabbis knew that child sacrifice had been performed in Israel in the name of Yahweh. They were not condemning the practice universally — they were trying to regulate it, to distinguish between “legitimate” (Yahwistic) and “illegitimate” (pagan) contexts.

There is an entire discussion about it here:

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

The god of Israel (Yahweh) is apparently satiated by human suffering. In particular the sacrifice of innocent children.


In (2 Samuel 21), David is king over Judah. A famine oppresses the land; King David learns that LORD God is punishing Israel for King Saul’s sin (Saul attacked the Gibeonites in violation of Joshua’s treaty (Joshua 9:15). Therefore, in order to relieve the famine, David must appease the Gibeonites. On negotiation, the Gibeonites demand to be given seven descendants of Saul to be hanged “unto the LORD.” David picks two of Saul’s sons and five of Saul’s grandsons. Coincidentally, the five grandsons are the children of Michal, the woman David had wanted to marry (see 1 Samuel 18:25). David gives these Israelites to the Gibeonites so the Gibeonites can hang them.

“Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David inquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.
And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them: and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah.) Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the LORD? And the Gibeonites said unto him, We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel. And he said, What ye shall say, that will I do for you. And they answered the king, The man that consumed us, and that devised against us that we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel, Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, whom the LORD did choose. And the king said, I will give them. But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of the LORD’s oath that was between them, between David and Jonathan the son of Saul. But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of barley harvest.” Source: (2 Samuel 21:1-11)

Prima Qur’an Comments: The God (Elyon) did not explicitly request the hangings. But The God (Elyon) imposed an insufferable famine on the Israelites, The God (Elyon) named the Gibeonites as the people to be appeased, and the Gibeonites named the penalty. When it was done, The God (Elyon) apparently found the human sacrifice to be satisfactory: the chapter continues with accounts of battles, and the famine is not mentioned further. This sequence — an angry god causes a natural disaster, innocent life is slain to appease the god’s anger, and the hardship ceases — this is the same sequence of events found in the human sacrifice rites of other primitive religions.

The God (Elyon) of the Bible did not stop Jephthah from burning his small daughter if the God (Elyon)gave him victory over his enemies.

“Then the Spirit of the Lord came on Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands. He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon. When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.” “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.” “You may go,” He said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin. (Judges 11:29-39)

Prima Qur’an Comments: Now there is major major copium from Christians and Jews regarding this.

Copium # 1. They try and put a spin that the sacrifice is to dedicate his daughter to the Lord as a virgin (meaning temple service) and Jephthah bemoaned that due this he would never have any descendants.
Response: and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering & After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed The emphasis on her being a virgin is so she would be an unblemished sacrificed.

Copium #2. The God (Elyon) commands against sacrificing Children in the Bible.

Response. No, no he doesn’t!

“You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 18:21)

“I will also set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given some of his offspring to Molech, so as to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name.” (Leviticus 20:3)

“You shall not behave thus toward the Lord your God, for every abominable act which the Lord hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.” (Deuteronomy 12:31)

As well as the related practice of passing the children through the fire and not consuming them by the fire:

“There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer.” (Deuteronomy 18:10)

“You shall also say to the sons of Israel: ‘Any man from the sons of Israel or from the aliens sojourning in Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones.” (Leviticus 20:2)

Offering your children up as a burnt offering is not against the Torah teachings of the Jews. Nor was it something unacceptable to God. The offence in question was offering them up to Molech and NOT THE GOD (ELYON) OF ISRAEL!

“For I the Lord your God am a jealous God.” (Daniel 5:9)

This god that they worshipped is not against sacrifice or burnt offerings as we have already shown above. Their god

There is no issue with offering up children as a holocaust (burnt offering) to their god. The issue is doing it to false gods.

“They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molek, though I never commanded—nor did it enter my mind—that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.” (Jeremiah 32:35)

Because the Elyon, The High God of the Bible is jealous.

Did we forget?

“After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” (Genesis 22:1-2)

The Angel of the Lord as Satan and one of the gods among gods in the Bible.

In the Hebrew Bible, ha-satan (הַשָּׂטָן) is not a proper name but a title: “the Adversary” or “the Accuser” . This figure appears in the divine council — the assembly of elohim (divine beings) over which Elyon presides as supreme. Ha-Satan is not a rival god or a fallen angel — he is a subordinate being within Elyon’s administration. As one scholar puts it: “The Satan is a member of the divine council, serving as a sort of prosecutor or royal spy” (Peggy L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven).

“I was further shown Joshua, the high priest, standing before the angel of GOD, and the Accuser (Satan) standing at his right to accuse him. But [the angel of] GOD said to the Accuser (Satan), “GOD rebukes you, O Accuser; GOD who has chosen Jerusalem rebukes you! For this is a brand plucked from the fire.”

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

Here you have Ha-Satan standing at the right hand of the Angel of the LORD to accuse Joshua the high priest. Elyon (the Most High God) rebukes Ha-Satan.

“One day the divine beings presented themselves before GOD. The Adversary came along with them to present himself before GOD. GOD said to the Adversary, “Where have you been?” The Adversary answered GOD, “I have been roaming all over the earth.” GOD said to the Adversary, “Have you noticed My servant Job? There is no one like him on earth, a blameless and upright man who fears God and shuns evil. He still keeps his integrity; so you have incited Me against him to destroy him for no good reason. The Adversary answered GOD, “Skin for skin—all that the man has he will give up for his life. But lay a hand on his bones and his flesh, and he will surely blaspheme You to Your face.” So GOD said to the Adversary, “See, he is in your power; only spare his life.”The Adversary departed from GOD’s presence and inflicted a severe inflammation on Job from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.”

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

Here you have Ha-Satan appearing among the bene ha-elohim (sons of God) and acting as a prosecuting attorney, testing Job’s righteousness with Elyon’s permission. He is not an enemy of Elyon but a member of His court.

 The Angel of the LORD as a Satan in Numbers 22

This is a fascinating and often overlooked passage.

The Narrative: Balaam is hired by Balak of Moab to curse Israel. He consults God (Elyon) who tells him not to go. Balak sends more prestigious messengers; Balaam asks again; God (Elyon)permits him to go but with conditions. On the way:

“But God’s anger was kindled because he went, and the Angel of the LORD stationed himself in the road as an adversary (satan) against him.” (Numbers 22:22)

Analysis:

  • The Hebrew word used for “adversary” is precisely לְשָׂטָן (l’satan) — “as a satan.”
  • The Angel of the LORD — generally understood as a manifestation of God (Elyon) Himself (since the Angel speaks as God and is worshipped as God elsewhere) — functions as an obstructor or adversary to Balaam.
  • This same Angel later permits Balaam to continue (Numbers 22:35).

What this means: God (Elyon)through His Angel) acts as both a guide and an adversary. The same being who permits Balaam to go also stands in his way as a satan. This shows that the role of “adversary” is not a separate being but a function that even God(Elyon) can perform.

As one commentary notes: “The Angel of the LORD acts as Balaam’s ‘adversary’ (satan)… This is the only place in the Old Testament where the Angel of the LORD is explicitly called a satan” (Gordon Wenham, Numbers).

“O Lord, you have deceived me, and I was deceived; you are stronger than I, and you have prevailed.” (Jeremiah 20:7)

Henotheism is the worship of one primary deity while accepting the existence of other gods within a pantheon. It is sort of a pantheon.  As a middle ground between polytheism and monotheism, it allows followers to focus devotion on a single “king god”—such as Zeus, Odin, or in some forms of Hinduism—while recognizing other divine beings.

This is why we can have text like the following:

Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” (2 Samuel 24:1)

“Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.” (1 Chronicles 21:1)

This would seem to be a contradiction but when we realize that they are basically one and the same it makes sense from a henotheistic worldview.

The biblical divine council — with its bene ha-elohim, ha-satan as prosecutor, and the Angel of the LORD as a distinct yet divine figure — is not compatible with Islamic tawhid (radical monotheism). Whether the figure in question is called Baal, Molech, Yahweh, or Ha-Satan, the Qur’an would reject any theology that places other divine beings beside Allah.

Qur’an Surah 112 has been shown to absolutely demolish this framework.

Yahweh seems to be a sort of tribal war deity or war angel as presented in the TNCH. The part of the Bible the Christians call: ‘The Old Testament.’

The term Tzva’ot refers to armies or hosts. (Hebrew: Yahweh Tzva’ot) is a divine title in the Bible appearing over 200 times, primarily in the Old Testament, designating Yahweh as the god over all heavenly and earthly armies.

“Yahweh of Armies is with us. The God of Jacob is our refuge. “ (Pslam 46:7)

“Each year Elkanah would travel to Shiloh to worship and sacrifice to the LORD of Heaven’s Armies at the Tabernacle. The priests of the LORD at that time were the two sons of Eli—Hophni and Phinehas.” (1 Samuel 1:3)

“The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.” (Exodus 15:3)

You even have henotheistic views put in the mouth of the One True God’s Prophets!

“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God (τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεόν), and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (John 17:3)

Here he could have simply said “only God.” By adding “true” (ἀληθινός), he leaves open the possibility that other beings exist who could be called “gods” (elohim) — but they are not the true God.

The Jehovah’s Witness have translated John 1:1 as:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1)

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

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

They make Moses say the following:

“Who among the gods is like you, Lord?” (Exodus 15:11)

“For the Lord is the great God, the great King above all gods.” (Pslam 95:3)

“All who worship images are put to shame, those who boast in idols—Worship him, all you gods!” (Psalm 97:7)

“For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.” (Deuteronomy 10:17)

This is far from monotheism. This is far from what is presented in the Qur’an.

Is it little wonder we those socities that succumb to these beliefs ridden with demonic forces? Even the innocent among them they have no idea what they are even worshipping! May Allah Guide these people to the truth before the burn in hellfire.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 23, 2026 · 2:03 am

Examination of the word tawaffā in the Qur’an. As it relates to the death of Jesus.

“I said not to them except what You commanded me – to worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You caused me to die., You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness.” (Qur’an 5:117)

“When Allah said, “O Jesus, indeedI will cause you to die and raise you to Myself and purify you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you [in submission to Allah alone] superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, and I will judge between you concerning that in which you used to differ.” (Qur’an 3:55)

﷽ 

The verb tawaffā (verbal noun: tawaffī) seems to cause a great deal of needless distress among Muslim exegetes. Why is this so?

We are going to present our case that if it was not for these oral traditions, Muslim exegetes would not argue the way they do at all.

So keep in mind that the interpretation of the verses that clearly say that Jesus died is influenced by ‘the tradition’.

Yet, the Qur’an itself offers no cause for confusion. Tawaffā appears in twenty-five verses in the Qur’an, and twice in relation to Christ Jesus (Qur’an 5:117 and Qur’an 3.55).

For twenty-three of those verses, 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. For those verses in the Qur’an that are not tied into ahadith about Jesus(as) coming back, they are translated and understood as per usual.

Interestingly enough, we have the following du’a:

“And you do not resent us except because we believed in the signs of our Lord when they came to us. Our Lord, pour upon us patience and let us die as Muslims [in submission to You].” (Qur’an 7:126)  

How often do we say this du’a after congregational prayers?

rabbanā afrigh ʿalaynā sabran wa-tawaffanā muslimīn (Ameen!)

So let us use the ol Google machine — aka—the much feared and dreaded ‘Shaykh Google’ and put two and two together, shall we?

So what we are going to do as an experiment so that you, the reader, can follow along as we are going to call upon the good people at https://www.islamawakened.com-Whoever they are, may Allah (swt) bless them.

They put all the translations out for everyone to see.

So what we are going to do is show you all the disparate translations into the English language. We will then put those that don’t immediately convey the idea of death—at least to us.

Tawaffā appears in twenty-five verses: Let us examine them all.

We will go in order of the chapter and verse they appear in.

Example: 1 (Qur’an 2:234)

“And those who are taken in death among you and leave wives behind – they, [the wives, shall] wait four months and ten [days]. And when they have fulfilled their term, then there is no blame upon you for what they do with themselves in an acceptable manner. And Allah is [fully] acquainted with what you do.” (Qur’an 2:234)

key word: yutawaffawna 

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/2/234/

Ya Allah people 51 disparate translations from people coming from different approaches to Islam have translated the passage as DEATH.

The two odd ones out: Ahmed Hulusi, a translation still in progress… and Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali and even then it finally puts “And the ones of you who are taken up, (i.e., those who die).”

You want to talk about consensus? The consensus here is that yutawaffawna means death, to die.

Example: 2 (Qur’an 2:24)

“And those who are taken in death among you and leave wives behind – for their wives is a bequest: maintenance for one year without turning [them] out. But if they leave [of their own accord], then there is no blame upon you for what they do with themselves in an acceptable way. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” (Qur’an 2:24)

key word: yutawaffawna

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/2/240/

Once again, look at the 52 disparate translations and the verdict is that yutawaffawna means death, to die.

Example: 3 (Qur’an 3:193) 

“Our Lord, indeed we have heard a caller calling to faith, [saying], ‘Believe in your Lord,’ and we have believed. Our Lord, so forgive us our sins and remove from us our misdeeds and cause us to die with the righteous.” (Qur’an 3:193) 

key word: watawaffanā

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/3/193/

Ambiguous translations are as follows:

“Gather us to Thee with the pious” — Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“And take us with the obedient ones”—The Monotheist Group 2011 edition.

“Take us back to You”—Aisha Bewley 

“And take us to You with the ever benign (ones)”—Muhmmed Mahmoud Ghali

“Include us among the righteous people”-Bijan Moeinian

“And take us to Thee with the pious.” -Arthur John Arberry

“And claim us back with the righteous” — N J Dawood (2014)

“You never fail to fulfill your oath” — Ahmed Halusi

44 Translators are in consensus that the term watawaffanā -is to cause to die.

In fact, we would say that N J Dawood, Arberry, Bewley, Bakhtiar or the Monotheist Group, none of them believe that watawaffana here means to be bodily raised up to heaven.

Example: 4 (Qur’an 4:15)

“Those who commit unlawful sexual intercourse of your women – bring against them four [witnesses] from among you. And if they testify, confine the guilty women to houses until death takes them or Allah ordains for them [another] way.” (Qur’an 4:15)

key word: yatawaffāhunna

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/15/

Ambiguous translations are as follows:

“This confinement would be for an indefinite period”- Shabbir Ahmed

“if they repent and correct themselves, then leave them to their own accord”- Ahmed Halusi

Again the consensus here from 52 different disparate translations is that yatawaffāhunna is understood as death or to die. 

Example: 5 (Qur’an 4:97)

“Indeed, those whom the angels take [in death] while wronging themselves – [the angels] will say, “In what [condition] were you?” (Qur’an 4:97)

key word: tawaffāhumu

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/97/

The following are ambiguous translations.

“The angels will ask those whom they claim back while steeped in sin”- N J Dawood 2014

“And those the angels take, while still they are wronging themselves”-Arthur John Arberry

“And the angels who take those who wronged themselves will say”-Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah

“When the angles take the should of those who [had compromised and in consequence] were unjust to their own souls”-,Bijan Moeinian 

“Surely the ones whom the Angels take up, (while) they are unjust to themselves”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“Indeed, those whom the angels take away while they are wronging themselves” -Ali Quli Qara’i

“The angels ask those they take while they are wronging themselves” -Aisha Bewley,-

“Those whom the Angels take, while they had wronged their souls.”-The Monotheist Group (2011 Edition)

“While the angels are gathering the souls of those who wronged themselves.”-Safi Kaskas

“Those whom the angels will gather up”- T. B Irving

“Truly, those whom the angels gathered to themselves.”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

The overwhelming consensus of 42 translations is that tawaffāhumu is to die by taking the souls. 

Example: 6 (Qur’an 5:117) –text that is about Jesus.

“I said not to them except what You commanded me – to worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You caused me to die., You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness.” (Qur’an 5:117)

key word: tawaffaytanī

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/117/

We know the drill on this crucial passage. So let us see the disparate translations here:

“Thou hast caused me to die”-Muhammad Asad

“But when Thou didst cause me to die”-Shakir

“You did cause me to die”-Wahiduddin Khan

“You did cause me to die”- Safi Kaskas

“Ever since You took my soul”-Abdel Haleem

“And after my life had been done”- Ahmed Ali

“After You caused me to die”-Shabbir Ahmed

“but when you gave me Wafat”-Dr. Kamal Omar (NON COMMITTAL)

“You terminated my life”-Monotheist group-2013

“but when You caused me to die” -Muhammed Shafi

“Thou didst cause me to die”-Maulana Muhammad Ali

“so when You made me die”- Muhammad Ahmed-Samira

“Thou didst cause me to die”-Sher Ali

“When You terminated my life on earth”-Rashad Khalifa

“You caused me to die”- Amatul Rahman Omar

“Thou didst cause me to die” -George Sale

39 Translations overwhelming support the view that tawaffaytanī -is to be raised up, gathered up, recalled. We assume the majority believe bodily and alive.

So in the curious case of Jesus (as) the majority view is not to understand tawaffaytanī as death. That was predictable; as it will be when we get to (Qur’an 3:55).

WHAT ABOUT THE TWO VERSES THAT ARE THAN USED TO SUGGEST THAT JESUS HAS BEEN PUT TO SLEEP FOR THESE LAST 2000 YEARS? (Qur’an 6:60) & (Qur’an 39:42)

That is to say they want to argue that Jesus (as) has been put to sleep and will one day wake up at some unspecified time. Presumably as per various hadith traditions etc.

Example: 7 (Qur’an 6:60)

“And it is He who takes your souls by night and knows what you have committed by day. Then He revives you therein that a specified term may be fulfilled. Then to Him will be your return; then He will inform you about what you used to do.” (Qur’an 6:60)

key word: yatawaffākum

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/6/60/

Example: 21 (Qur’an 39:42)

“Allah takes the souls at the time of their death, and those that do not die [He takes] during their (manāmihā)sleep. Then He keeps those for which He has decreed death and releases the others for a specified term. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought.” (Qur’an 39:42)

key word: yatawaffā

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/39/42/

This is why we have the well known du’a for going to sleep and rising from sleep:

Narrated Hudhaifa:

Whenever the Prophet (saw) intended to go to bed, he would recite: “Bismika Allahumma amutu wa ahya (With Your name, O Allah, I die and I live).” And when he woke up from his sleep, he would say: “Al-hamdu lil-lahil-ladhi ahyana ba’da ma amatana; wa ilaihi an-nushur (All the Praises are for Allah Who has made us alive after He made us die (sleep) and unto Him is the Resurrection). “

Source: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6324

Question: Has anyone observed a person sleeping that their body suddenly disappeared or went some where else?

I think we all know the answer is No.

“And He has made me blessed wherever I am and has enjoined up me prayer and zakah as long as I remain alive.” (Qur’an 19:31)

What kind of embellished claims are you going to make about Jesus (as) giving zakat in the heavens while asleep?!!

Here is the interesting point about these verses.  If as some of the exegetes want to understand it as ‘you put me to sleep‘ and ‘than raised me up‘  than what about those who say, “No he raises him up first and than will put him to sleep in the future!”  

DO TELL US WHICH VERSION IS CORRECT?

They would be taking into account:

“but Allah raised him to Himself. Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 4:158)

Does that really make any sense? They can’t both be correct.  

Also know that Qur’an 5:117 or Qur’an 3:55 can’t be understood as falling asleep. It is actually negated by Qur’an 6:60 and Qur’an 39:42 

Why? Allah (swt) either:

  1. Takes souls at the time of their death. If the souls are taken the person(body) dies.
  2. Other souls are taken during sleep-during an unspecified period of time-if they are not returned than they die in their sleep leaving behind a body.
  3. Other souls are taken during sleep-during an unspecified period of time –If they are returned to their body the person lives the course of their natural life until they die in the future.

In all three examples the body is left behind. There are no examples where tawaffā means to taking the soul and the body.

So since our interlocutors in this discussion will absolutely rule out points 1 & 2 with regards to Christ Jesus (as) let us look at point 3.

Let us put up the two verses in consideration and juxtapose them.  We will put up two translations that are very user friendly to the ‘he didn’t die and was bodily raised up‘ crowd.

“Behold! Allah said: “O Jesus! I will take thee AND raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein you dispute.” (Qur’an 3:55 Yusuf Ali translation)

“Never said I to them aught except what You did command me to say, ‘worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord’; and I was a witness over them while I dwelt among them; when You did take me up You were the Watcher over them, and You are a witness to all things.” (Qur’an 5:117 Yusuf Ali translation)

Now if we only had Qur’an 5:117 and we were feeling really charitable (despite the fact the word is translated as death every where else)- we could say, “O.K.  maybe you have a point“.

However, Qur’an 5:117 has to also be in harmony with Qur’an 3:55 doesn’t it?

This is where our interlocutors are in a most difficult situation.  Why are they in a most difficult situation?  Qur’an 3:55 says, “mutawaffīka WA rāfiʿuka.”

Thus, their arguments make the Qur’an a redundant revelation.

It would be akin to saying: “I am going to take your soul from your body (just like when we sleep) and than I am going to raise up (presumably) your physical body. It would have been sufficient to just say that Allah (swt) ‘took him up’.

However, we have this slight problem. We have this very troublesome conjunction called ‘WA‘ -AND.

Why does Allah (swt) want you to know that he did something to Jesus (as) before “taking him up”?   Couldn’t Allah (swt) just say that he “took him up”?

Why would Allah (swt) say, “I made Jesus fall asleep and than I took him up.”  What point is being made there?

“Gabriel replied, ‘Muhammed.’ It was asked, ‘Has he been called?’ Gabriel answered in the affirmative. Then it was said, ‘He is welcomed. What an excellent visit his is!’ The gate was opened. When I went over the second heaven, there I saw Yahya (i.e. John) and `Isa (i.e. Jesus) who were cousins of each other. Gabriel said (to me), ‘These are John and Jesus; pay them your greetings.’ So I greeted them and both of them returned my greetings to me and said, ‘You are welcomed, O pious brother and pious Prophet.’ ”

Source: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3887

What should we expect concerning the state of those Prophets (May Allah’s peace and blessings be upon them all)?

“The Messiah, son of Mary, is no more than a messenger, certainly the messengers before him have passed away. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!” (Qur’an 5:75)

So in light of Qur’an 6:60 and Q ur’an 39:42

Are there any indications in Qur’an 5:117 or Qur’an 3:55 that Allah (swt) took a soul out of Jesus -during a sleep phase -only to put it back in, and afterwards raise a body up?

“And has blessed me wherever I might be and has enjoined upon me Prayer and Zakah (purifying alms) as long as I live.” (Qur’an 19: 31)

Is Jesus(as) asleep (hence why he’s not doing zakat-for as long he lives?) being ‘disembodied‘ -meaning his soul is some where and his body is some where else? Yet , he has time for a quick meet and greet with the Blessed Prophet (saw) according to the above hadith?

In fact one of the Mauritanian Shaykhs -Shaykh Salek bin Siddina āl-Māliki whom was called upon to correct Mufti Abu Layth doesn’t buy into the argument of redundancy either.

This Shaykh knows full well what the text says and so he uses a different strategy -to save the hadith traditions-of course!

Read the following article and see for yourself! 

Shaykh Salek bin Siddina al-Maliki Return of Jesus: The use of hysteron proteron.

  (We have also downloaded this video-you know-in case it mysteriously vanishes)

Here are some notes we took of the video in the post linked to above.

We thought it was interesting. The translator said: @ 0:55 “Isa alayi salam has died a complete death.”

Prima Qur’an comments: “What other kind of death is there?”

@ 3:30 minutes, the translator addresses what the Shaykh says:
“Mutawafikka is a word that can be translated to ‘I will cause you to die.’ It is mentioned in a way that it does not indicate any particular order.”

“Allah says I will cause you to die, and I will raise you to me, it doesn’t it is used…”

@5:11 minutes, the translator addresses what the Shaykh says:

“So this ‘And’ is the type of WA that is being used. Those are both things that are being done, not necessarily in a particular order.” “In the statement that Zayd and Umar came, it doesn’t mean that Zayd came first. Not in any way does it indicate an order of those things.”

Prima Qur’an comments:

Firstly. May Allah (swt) have patience with the translator. The shaykh often would not allow the translator to finish. If the idea is to convey in Arabic let it be conveyed in Arabic, but if there is an agreement that this knowledge is to be transmitted by translation into English, than give the translator time.

Second the respected shaykh knows full well the obvious that ‘mutawafikka‘ means ‘I will cause you to die‘.

Third he definitely is not on board with the interpretation: “No he raises him up first and than will put him to sleep in the future!“

Fourth the shaykh being influenced by the traditions has to make the Qur’an confirm to his presuppositions.  As we stated before if it were not for the traditions (which the shaykh brought up quite often) you would wonder if he would have felt the need to use this literary device.   In English we call this hysteron proteron.

For example you could say I put on my shoes and socks. No one understands that you put the shoes on and then the socks.

So what is important that we take away from this is that.

  1. The Shaykh understands the word in Qur’an 3:55 means death
  2. A cursory reading of the text would be ‘I will cause you to to die and than elevate you.’
  3.  The obvious understanding of the text is made to conform to a literary device. This is obviously based upon the presupposition the shaykh holds to the ahadith.

Another point about Qur’an 5:117

Narrated Ibn `Abbas:

Allah’s Messenger (saw) delivered a sermon and said, “O people! You will be gathered before Allah barefooted, naked and not circumcised.” Then (quoting Qur’an) he said:– “As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it. A promise We have undertaken: Truly we shall do it..” The Prophet (saw) then said, “The first of the human beings to be dressed on the Day of Resurrection, will be Abraham. Lo! Some men from my followers will be brought and then (the angels) will drive them to the left side (Hell-Fire). I will say. ‘O my Lord! (They are) my companions!’ Then a reply will come (from Almighty), ‘You do not know what they did after you.’I will say as the pious slave (the Prophet (as) Jesus) said: And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them. When You took me up. You were the Watcher over them and You are a Witness to all things.’ (Qur’an 5:117) Then it will be said, “These people have continued to be apostates since you left them.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4625)

Now what is the condition of the Blessed Prophet (saw) at this point when he used that phrase “When you took me up?” It is clear that Allah (swt) took his soul and his body is in Madinah. In other words the Prophet Muhammed (saw) died.

Was he taken body and soul into the heavens?

Example: 8 (Qur’an 6:61)

“And He is the subjugator over His servants, and He sends over you guardian-angels until,when death comes to one of you, Our messengers take him, and they do not fail [in their duties].” (Qur’an 6:61)

key word: tawaffathu

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/6/61/default.htm

The unanimous decision of 54 translations is that tawaffathu is death.

Example: 9 (Qur’an 7:37)

“And who is more unjust than one who invents about Allah a lie or denies His verses? Those will attain their portion of the decree until when Our messengers come to them to take them in death, they will say, “Where are those you used to invoke besides Allah ?” They will say, “They have departed from us,” and will bear witness against themselves that they were disbelievers.” (Qur’an 7:37)

key word: yatawaffawnahum

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/7/37/default.htm

“When Our messengers come to gather them”- M.M Pickthall

“Our Messengers drew near to gather them to themselves” -Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“Our messengers come to carry them off”-T.B Irving

“So that when Our messengers come to take them”-The Monotheist Group (2011) -changed position in 2013.

“When Our angels arrive to take them back”-Abdel Haleem

“When Our messengers come to take them away”- “Ali Quli Qara’i

“When Our Messengers come to them to take them up”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“Our Messengers come to take them away.”- Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah

“Our messengers come to them, to take them away”- Arthur John Arberry

“Until when Our messengers come to them to take them away”- Sayyed Abbas Sadr-Ameli

44 disparate translations are unanimous in their decision that yatawaffawnahum means to take the souls and or to die.

Worth mentioning is that ‘The Monotheist Group‘  translation changed in 2013.

Example: 10 (Qur’an 7:126)

“And you do not resent us except because we believed in the signs of our Lord when they came to us. Our Lord, pour upon us patience and let us die as Muslims [in submission to You].” (Qur’an 7:126)

key word: watawaffanā

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/7/126/

“And call us to Thyself”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“Take us back to You”-Aisha Bewley

“And take us to Thyself”-Hamid S Aziz

“Take us to Yourself”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“Lift us (from the world)”-Dr. Mohammed Tahir Qadri.

“And gather us unto Thee”- Arthur John Arberry.

“And take us to Thyself resigned”-Edward Henry Palmer

47 disparate translations believe that watawaffana is to die.  

Even those that don’t translate it as such take for example Dr. Mohmmed Tahir Qadri, do you really think his belief when making this du’a is that Muslims will be taken bodily into the sky? Does anyone really think Aisha Bewley believes this?

Example: 11 (Qur’an 8:50)

“And if you could but see when the angels take the souls of those who disbelieved… They are striking their faces and their backs and [saying], “Taste the punishment of the Burning Fire.” (Qur’an 8:50)

key word: yatawaffā

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/8/50/

“See how the angels receive”-M.M Pickthall

“Are called to themselves by the angels”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“See as the Angels take those who have rejected”-The Monotheist Group 2011 -changed in 2013 edition

“When the angels take away the faithless”-Ali Quli Qara’i

“As they take up the ones who disbelieved”,  -Muhmmed Mahmoud Ghali

“As the angels take away those who disbelieve”-Talal A. Itani (new translation)

When the angels take the unbelievers”-Arthur John Arberry

47 disparate translations are in agreement that yatawaffa means to separate the soul from the body, to cause to die.

Example: 12 (Qur’an 10:46)

“And whether We show you some of what We promise them, [O Muhammed], or We take you in death, to Us is their return; then, [either way], Allah is a witness concerning what they are doing.” (Qur’an 10:46)

key word: natawaffayannaka

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/10/46/

“We call thee to Us.”- Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“Or retrieve you [first].”-Safi Kaskas

“Or take you to Oursefl”-Ahmed Ali

“Or take you back to Us”- Aisha Bewley

“Or take you away”-Ali Quli Qara’i.

“Or whether We will take you to Ourself”-Hamid S. Aziz

“We definitely take you up to Us” -Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“Or We take you back to Us”-Muhammed Taqi Usmani

“Or take you”-Talal A. Itani

“Or We call you unto Us”-Maududi

“We call you towards Us”-  Faridul Haque

“Or We call you to Us”-  Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah

“Or We call you unto Us”- Ahmed Raza Khan (Barelvi)

“We call thee unto Us”-Arthur John Arberry

“Or we will take thee to ourself”-Edward Henry Palmer

“Or whether we first take thee to Ourself”-John Medows Rodwell

“Or claim you back to Us”-N J Dawood (2014)

37 disparate translations are of the view that natawaffayannaka means to cause to die, to separate the soul from the body.

Now there are a few points that need to be mentioned here. Understand that many people who don’t believe that the Prophet (saw) is dead. They believe that the Prophet (saw) was poisoned by a Jewish woman and that made him (saw) a martyr.  Therefore, he is alive ‘though we do not perceive it’.  However, if you ask them if they believe a body is in the Prophets Mosque in Medina, they will answer ‘of course’.

In fact, every one of those translators who translate as they do asks them point-blank, “Do you believe there is a body in the Mosque in Medina with the Green Dome?”

Remember the point we mentioned earlier about these people making the Qur’an redundant?

Let’s take the translation of Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

Let us look at he translates the above text:

“And whether We definitely show you something (i.e., some form of punishment) of what We promise them, or We definitely take you up to Us, then to Us will be their return; thereafter Allah is Ever-Witnessing over whatever they perform.” (Qur’an 10:46)

“We definitely take you up to Us” -Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

Now let us look at he translates Qur’an 3:55

“As Allah said, “O Isa, (Jesus) surely, I am taking you up to Me, and I am raising you up to Me, and I am purifying you of the ones who have disbelieved. And I am making the ones who have closely followed you above the ones who have disbelieved until the Day of the Resurrection. Thereafter to Me will be your return; so I will judge between you as to whatever you used to differ in.” (Qur’an 3:55)

“I am taking you up to Me, and I am raising you up to Me.” – Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali.

Notice the redundancy in the language used?    He could have just translated as “I am taking you up to Me”  OR  “I am raising you up to Me” -because in his mind they both mean the same thing.

This is the exact kind of problems that they run into when they approach the Qur’an with a mind of making it to conform to the oral traditions.

Example: 13 (Qur’an 10:104)

“Say, [O Muhammed], “O people, if you are in doubt as to my religion – then I do not worship those which you worship besides Allah ; but I worship Allah , who causes your death. And I have been commanded to be of the believers.” (Qur’an 10:104)

key word: yatawaffākum

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/10/104/

“Who will call you to Himself”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“Who will gather you (all)”-T.B. Irving

“Who will eventually retrieve you back to Him”- Safi Kaskas

“Who takes me”-The Monotheist Group 2011 edition -changed in the 2013 edition.

“Who will take you back to Him”-Aisha Bewley

“Who takes you to Himself”-Hamid S. Aziz

“Who takes you up to Him”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“I only serve Allah Who will cause (all of) you to”-Maududi

“Who will gather you to Him”-Arthur John Arberry

“Who takes you to Himself”_Edward Henry Palmer

“Who will claim you back”-N J Dawood (2014)

43 disparate translations understand yatawaffākum to mean to terminate the life of, to take the souls, to cause to die.

Example: 14 (Qur’an 12:101)

“My Lord, You have given me [something] of sovereignty and taught me of the interpretation of dreams. Creator of the heavens and earth, You are my protector in this world and in the Hereafter. Cause me to die a Muslim and join me with the righteous.” (Qur’an 12:101)

key word: tawaffanī

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/12/101/

“Call me to Thyself as one who submits.”-Dr. Laleh Bakthiar

“Gather me in as a Muslim.”-T.B Irving

“Take me as one who has surrendered.”-The Monotheist Group 2011 Edition -changed in the 2013 edition

“O receive me to Thee in true submission.”-Arthur John Arberry

“Take me to Thyself resigned,” -Edward Henry Palmer

49 different disparate translations understand tawaffani as to die , to separate the soul from the body.

Example: 15 (Qur’an 13:40)

“And whether We show you part of what We promise them or take you in death, upon you is only the [duty of] notification, and upon Us is the account.” (Qur’an 13:40)

key word: natawaffayannaka

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/13/40/

Ambiguous translations are as follows:

“Or call thee to Ourselves”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

T. B Irving and Safi Kaskas finally let us die.

“Or We take thee away.” -Abdul Majid Daryabadi

“We take you back to Us”-Aisha Bewley

“Or take you away”-Ali Quli Qara’i

“Or take you to Ourself”-Hamis S. Aziz

“Or We take you to Us”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“Or We take you back to Us”-Muhammed Taqi Usamani

“Or We take you away before that happens”-Maududi

“Or call you to Us before it”- Faridul Haque

“Or We call you to Us”- Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah

“Or We call you to Us before”- Ahmed Raza Khan (Barelvi)

“Or We lift you.”-Dr. Mohammad Tahir-ul-Qadri

“We call thee to Us”-Arthur John Arberry

“Or we will take thee to Ourself”-Edward Henry Palmer

“Or whether we take thee hence”-John Medows Rodwell

“Or claim you back to Us”-N J Dawood (2014)

37 Disparate translations understand natawaffayannaka to mean to die , to separate the soul from the body.

Example: 16 (Qur’an 16:28)

“The ones whom the angels take in death [while] wronging themselves, and [who] then offer submission, [saying], “We were not doing any evil.” But, yes! Indeed, Allah is Knowing of what you used to do.” (Qur’an 16:28)

Key word: tatawaffāhumu

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/16/28/

Ambiguous translations are as follows:

“Those whom the angels call to themselves”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“Whom the angels will carry away”-T.B. Irving

“Those whom the Angels take while they had wronged their souls”-The Monotheist Group 2011 Edition -changed in the 2013 edition.

“Those whom the angels take away while they are wronging themselves”- Ali Quli Qara’i

“Those whom the angels take away while they are wronging their own souls.”-Hamid S. Aziz

“Whom the Angels take up while they are unjust to themselves.”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“The unjust, who will be seized by the angels, will submit themselves”-Muhammed Sarwar

“Whom the angels take while they were still harming themselves.”-Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah

“Whom the angels take while still they are wronging themselves”-Arthur John Arberry

“Those whom the angels took away were wronging themselves;”-Edward Henry Palmer

“Those whom the angels will claim back”- N J Dawood (2014)

43 different and disparate translations have tatawaffāhumu understood to be taken in death.

Example: 17 (Qur’an 16:32)

“The ones whom the angels take in death,[being] good and pure; [the angels] will say, “Peace be upon you. Enter Paradise for what you used to do.” (Qur’an 16:32)

key word: tatawaffāhumu

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/16/32/

Ambiguous translations are as follows:

“Those whom the angels call to themselves”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“Whom the angels carry off”-T.B. Irving

“Those whom the Angels take”-The Monotheist Group 2011 Edition-changed in 2013 edition

“Those the angels take in a virtuous state.”-Aisha Bewley

“Those whom the angels take away while they are pure”.-Ali Quli Qara’i

“To those whom the angels take away in a goodly state”-Hamid S. Aziz

“Whom the Angels take up while they are goodly”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“They will be received by the angels of mercy”-Muhammed Sarwar

“Those who are in a wholesome state when the angels take them”-Talal A. Itani

“Whom the angels take while they are goodly”-  Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah

“Whom the angels take while they are goodly”-Arthur John Arberry

“To those whom the angels take off in a goodly state:-Edward Henry Palmer

“Whom the angels will claim”-N J Dawood (2014)

41 different and disparate translations understand tatawaffāhumu as to take in death, to take the soul.

Example: 18 (Qur’an 16:70) 

“And Allah created you; then He will take you in death. And among you is he who is reversed to the most decrepit [old] age so that he will not know, after [having had] knowledge, a thing. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Competent.” (Qur’an 16:70) 

key word: yatawaffākum

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/16/70/

Ambiguous translations are as follows:

“He calls you to Himself.” Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“Then He will gather you (all) in”-T.B. Irving

“He will take you”-The Monotheist Group 2011 Edition -2013 edition they changed their position.

“Will take you back again”-Aisha Bewley

“Then He takes you away”-Ali Quli Qara’i

“Then He will take you to Himself”-Hamid S. Aziz

“Thereafter He takes you (to Him)”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“Then He takes you back”-Muhammed Taqi Usmani

“Then He takes you away”-Talal A. Itani

“Then He will gather you to Him”-Arthur John Arberry

“Then He will take you to Himself”-Edward Henry Palmer

“By and bye will he take you to himself”-John Medows Rodwell

“And He will then reclaim you”-N J Dawood (2014)

41 disparate translations  understand yatawaffākum- as to cause to die, to separate the soul from the body.

Example 19: (Qur’an 22:5)

“O People, if you should be in doubt about the Resurrection, then [consider that] indeed, We created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then from a clinging clot, and then from a lump of flesh, formed and unformed – that We may show you. And We settle in the wombs whom We will for a specified term, then We bring you out as a child, and then [We develop you] that you may reach your [time of] maturity. And among you is he who is taken in [early] death, and among you is he who is returned to the most decrepit [old] age so that he knows, after [once having] knowledge, nothing. And you see the earth barren, but when We send down upon it rain, it quivers and swells and grows [something] of every beautiful kind.” (Qur’an 22:5)

Key word: yutawaffā

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/22/5/

Prima Qur’an Comments:  One thing is certain you cannot escape death. Look at all thes above translators of Qur’an 22:5 who were very reluctant to use the word death or dying.  They resisted and resisted and finally they yield.

“And among you there is he whom death will call to itself”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“[Then] there are some of you who are taken away”-Ali Quli Qara’i –this guy still resist 😉 

“And among you there is he who is taken up, (i.e., dies)“-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali.  So now Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali sheds light on what he means by ‘is taken up‘ i.e -death.

“Then We (rear you) that you may attain your (age of) full strength. And among you then is he who is allowed to complete (the normal life-span)”- Dr. Kamal Omar -odd translation

“And some of you die“-Arthur John Arberry

“And of you are some who die“-Edward Henry Palmer

“Some among you die young”-N J Dawood (2014)

Example 20: (Qur’an 32:11) THE MOST POWERFUL VERSE FOR LOOKING AT ALL THESE ODD TRANSLATIONS

Say, “The angel of death will take your soul who has been entrusted with you. Then to your Lord you will be returned.” (Qur’an 32:11)

Key word: yatawaffākum

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/32/11/

Ambiguous translations are as follows:

“Will gather you”-Muhammed Asad

“Will gather you”-M.M Picthall

“Will call you to itself.”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“Will gather you in”-T.B Irving

“Will retrieve you”-Safi Kaskas

“Will take you”-The Monotheist Group 2011-the 2013 edition modified their translation

“Will take you up”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“Will collect you”-Shabbir Ahmed

“Will take you”-Umm Muhmmad Sahih Internationl

“Will reclaim you”-Talal A. Itani

Will gather you”- Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah

“Shall gather you”-Arthur John Arberry

“Shall take you away”-Edward Henry Palmer

“Will claim you back.”-N J Dawood (2014)

“Will gather you”-Sayyid Qutb

The reason why this is the most powerful verse yet discussed is because it deals with the angel of death.  What does the angel of death do? It is very obvious.  The fact that translators who we have seen use that same ambiguity here makes it now both known and clear what they mean.   

So for example when we see them use ambiguous terms like:

“gather you”

“call you to itself”

“retrieve you”

“take you up”

“collect you”

“claim you”

“reclaim you”

“summoned”

We now know with certainty that all of these authors meant ‘to die’, ‘to separate the soul from the body’ ‘to take the soul’.  What else does the Angel of Death do?   Notice you kept seeing practically the same group of people that will over and over use ambiguous terms. Instead of making their case plain in the most obvious situation—”the angel of death” — they still choose to use ambiguous language — which sheds light on their ambiguity in all other places! This actually means that the verb tawaffā (verbal noun: tawaffī) is being translated nearly 100% of the time as to die, to cause to die, to separate the soul from the body! 

Thank you! Al hamdulillah!

Example: 21 (Qur’an 39:42)

“Allah takes the souls at the time of their death, and those that do not die [He takes] during their sleep. Then He keeps those for which He has decreed death and releases the others for a specified term. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought.” (Qur’an 39:42)

Key word: yatawaffā

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/39/42/

This is another very powerful verse.  Not a single translator can play with the text here.   It is as Allah (swt) says,

“We have brought them a Scripture – We have explained it on the basis of knowledge – as guidance and mercy for those who believe.” (Qur’an 7:52)

The beautiful thing about this verse is that death is clearly contrasted with sleep (as explained in a similar verse above).

Here there is 100% unanimous approval from the translators that yatawaffā is death, final death, physical death, taking the soul from the body.

Translators (any of us) can try and play fast & loose with the words of Allah (swt) but sooner or latter we will get caught out.

Example :22 (Qur’an 39:42)

“It is He who created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then from a clinging clot; then He brings you out as a child; then [He develops you] that you reach your [time of] maturity, then [further] that you become elders. And among you is he who is taken in death before [that], so that you reach a specified term; and perhaps you will use reason.” (Qur’an 39:42)

Key word: yatawaffa

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/39/42/

Ambiguous translations are as follows:

“While some of you He recalls”- Maududi

“And some are summoned before completing the whole cycle”-Bijan Moeinian

“Are taken away before”-Edward Henry Palmer

Once again, there is unanimous understanding that ‘yatawaffa’ means to die, to be taken in death, to take the soul, to separate the soul from the body.

Remember as well that these ambiguous terms: ‘summoned’, ‘taken away’, ‘recalled’, ‘gone with the wind’, ‘spirited away’ etc. None of that is ambiguous to us now. It all means having died.

Example: 23 (Qur’an 40:77)

 “So be patient, [O Muhammed]; indeed, the promise of Allah is truth. And whether We show you some of what We have promised them orWe take you in death, it is to Us they will be returned.” (Qur’an 40:77)

key word: natawaffayannaka

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/40/77/

Ambiguous translations are as follows:

“We call thee to Us”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“Recall you to Us”-T. B. Irving

“Or take you back to Us”-Aisha Bewley

“Or take you away”-Ali Quli Qara’i

“We definitely take you up (to Us)”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“We recall you”-Farook Malik

“Or take you to Us”-Talal A. Itani 

“Or  We recall you (from this world)”-Maududi

“Call you to Us”- Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah

“Or make you depart from the visible life”-Dr. Mohammed Tahir-ul-Qadri  (from the visible life-what’s he mean here make you become invisible?) (walk around cloaked from vision)

“We call thee unto Us”-Arthur John Arberry

“Take thee to ourself”-Edward Henry Palmer

“Or claim you back”-N J Dawood 2014

The unanimous decision is that natawaffayannaka means to cause to die, to take the life of, to separate the soul from the body. The only exception seems to be Dr. Mohammad Tahir Ul Qadri who seems to be offering everyone the power of invisibility; however we are sure that you dear reader will see this is not the case.

Exampe: 24 (Qur’an 47:27)

“Then how [will it be] when the angels take them in death, striking their faces and their backs?” (Qur’an 47:27)

Key word: tawaffathumu

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/47/27/

Ambiguous translations are as follows:

“When the angels gather them”-M.M Pickthall

“Angels will call them to themselves”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“Gather them up”-T. B. Irving

“Then the angels take them away”-Ali Quli Qara’i

“Angels take them up”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“The angels take them”-Arthur John Arberry

Again the unanimous consensus is that tawaffathumu means to die, to cause to die, to take the soul at death, to separate the soul from the body.

Example: 25 (Qur’an 3:55) text that is about Jesus.

“When Allah said, “O Jesus, indeedI will cause you to die and raise you to Myself and purify you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you [in submission to Allah alone] superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, and I will judge between you concerning that in which you used to differ.” (Qur’an 3:55)

Key word: mutawaffīka

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/3/55/

We all know the drill of how the masses understand these ayats and how both the bulk of majority scholarship want the masses to understand them.

Tawaffā appears in twenty-five passages in the Qur’an, and twice in relation to Christ Jesus (Qur’an 5:117 & Qur’an 3.55).

Conclusion and Summary

The Qur’anic usage of tawaffā is remarkably consistent

The linguistic facts:

  • Tawaffā / tawaffī appears ~25 times in the Qur’an.
  • In every uncontroversial context, it means:
    • Allah takes the soul
    • i.e. death (final death or death-like separation, as in sleep, where the body remains)

Even in verses where translators use softer English (“take”, “gather”, “recall”, “claim”), the underlying meaning is still death, as we convincingly demonstrated by:

  • Context (Angel of Death, punishment, resurrection)
  • Cross-comparison with Qur’an 39:42 and 6:60
  • The translators’ own theology (none believe people are bodily lifted into heaven at death)

In other words:

Lexically, contextually, and theologically, tawaffā in the Qur’an means “to take the soul,” resulting in death.

No neutral reader disputes this.

The problem only appears with Jesus (Q 3:55 and Q 5:117)

We correctly identified the anomaly:

  • 23 verses → tawaffā = death
  • 2 verses about Jesus → suddenly reinterpreted

This inconsistency is not driven by Arabic, grammar, or Qur’anic context.

It is driven by extra-Qur’anic commitments.

The real pressure comes from hadith-based eschatology

Classical Sunni theology developed a very detailed end-times narrative in which:

  • Jesus is alive
  • He was raised bodily
  • He will return physically before the Hour

Once that framework is assumed, the Qur’an must be made to fit it.

So when exegetes reach:

  • Qur’an 3:55 (mutawaffīka wa rāfiʿuka)
  • Qur’an 5:117 (falammā tawaffaytanī)

They face a dilemma:

Either:

  1. Read tawaffā consistently → Jesus died
  2. Or preserve the tradition → reinterpret the word

They overwhelmingly choose option 2.

How exegetes resolve the tension (as we have documented)

To preserve the tradition, they resort to:

a) Redefinition

Claiming tawaffā here means:

  • “taking without death”
  • “taking the soul temporarily”
  • “taking body and soul”

➡️ None of these meanings exist elsewhere in the Qur’an

b) Literary devices (e.g., hysteron proteron)

Arguing that:

“wa (and) does not imply order”

So:

“I will cause you to die and raise you”
does not mean death precedes raising

This move is theologically motivated, not text-driven.

As we have noted:

  • A plain reading already makes sense
  • The literary device is introduced only because death is unacceptable

c) Strategic ambiguity in translation

Using phrases like:

  • “take you to Myself”
  • “recall”
  • “gather”
  • “claim back”

Yet the same translators use these exact phrases for ordinary death elsewhere, including:

  • The Angel of Death (Qur’an 32:11)
  • Disbelievers being punished
  • The Prophet Muhammed (saw) himself

This exposes the inconsistency.

The Qur’an 39:42 destroys the “sleep” theory

We highlighted the decisive verse:

Allah takes the souls at the time of their death, and those that do not die during their sleep…

This verse establishes three categories only:

  1. Soul taken → death
  2. Soul taken during sleep → body remains
  3. Soul returned → life continues

There is no category where the body is taken.

So:

  • “Jesus was asleep for 2000 years”
  • “Jesus’ soul was taken but his body raised”
  • “Jesus is alive somewhere bodily”

➡️ None of these fit Qur’anic anthropology

Qur’an 3:55 and the problem of redundancy

The observation here is crucial:

mutawaffīka WA rāfiʿuka

If tawaffā already means “raise bodily,” then:

  • rāfiʿuka becomes redundant
  • The verse collapses into tautology

But if tawaffā means death, the verse is elegant and non-redundant:

  1. Death (completion of earthly mission)
  2. Elevation in rank/status with Allah
  3. Purification from accusations
  4. Vindication of followers

This reading:

  • Fits Qur’anic style
  • Fits Qur’anic anthropology
  • Fits Qur’an 5:75 (“messengers before him passed away”)

Why the distress persists?

So we return to our original question.

Why does tawaffā cause so much distress?

Because:

  • Accepting its Qur’anic meaning forces a revision of inherited eschatology
  • That revision feels, to many, like undermining tradition
  • So the text is bent to protect the framework rather than the reverse

In short:

The distress is not linguistic.
It is theological.
And it is inherited, not Qur’anic.

Final takeaway

Our documentation shows that:

  • The Qur’an is internally consistent
  • The word tawaffā is not ambiguous in usage
  • The ambiguity appears only when external narratives are imposed
  • Once those narratives are removed, the verses about Jesus read plainly

As we concluded:

“If it were not for the traditions, Muslim exegetes would not argue this way at all.”

Jesus (alayi salam) he is dead. He is not coming back!

Open your eyes brothers and sisters, dear truth seekers.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

October 21, 2025 · 2:13 am

Critique of the argument that Muhammed wrote the Qur’an.

“Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and the One whom Cherishes, Who created” (Qur’an 96:1)

﷽ 

We have seen this issue raised by Christians repeatedly.   We have also remembered Dr. Anis Shorrosh using it in his debate with Dr. Jamal Badawi.  Debate: (Qur’an word of God or word of Muhammed?)

It is one of the reasons why we choose the Yusuf Ali translation above.  

One could ask: what was God thinking?

You are approaching a man that is obviously illiterate, and you’re asking him to read, again and again….and yet again.

However, the narrative shows that the term ‘Iqra‘ can mean read (as from a book) or recite, or repeat (as in a repetition).

What we find fascinating is that the account of the Blessed Messenger (saw) and his receiving of the revelation are not found in the Qur’an.  Rather, it is found in secondary sources.  We think this is very profound.

In the Bible, we would read the historical bits, get some revelation as well as the thoughts of the narrators all mixed in together.

The very fact that the Qur’an does not have a detailed narrative of how the Blessed Messenger (saw) received the revelation speaks well for the Prophet (saw), the Qur’an, and the veracity of Islam.

In fact, it is one of the most remarkable things for us. Because we never hear in the Bible what that was like.  What is that moment like when you encounter the divine?  What is it like to know that you are being appointed as a Prophet of God?  What is your mental state? How does that feel?

That has to be indescribable beyond words! Powerful!

In the Bible, we are just given the impression that one day the Holy Spirit moved Matthew to write, so he picked up his pen and off he went. Not really inspiring. Rather lackluster for a divine encounter.

“So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammed], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.” (Qur’an 10:94)

Question: If Muhammed (saw) were in the habit of reading and writing, he wouldn’t need to ask the people of the book anything. He could simply go to their text for verification.

Now, this is, of course, assuming that they had their text with them.

However, the interesting thing about this passage is asking the Blessed Messenger (saw) to verify the truth outside the Qur’an or at the very least corroborate with what the divine directive was, by checking outside references.

No doubt those who follow the ‘Qur’an Only Religion’ would like to dismiss the dominant narrative for two reasons.

Our colleague was in an exchange with Dr. Shabbir Ahmed, @ our Beacon http://www.galaxydastak.com refuting the points he made that the Blessed Messenger (saw) was the one who wrote the Qur’an.  Needless to say, he was banned from the forum for ‘not participating in the project’.

He was initially invited there by a friend and former teacher, Hamza Abdulmalik from IPCI. He believes his former teacher was testing the waters before he decided to leave Islam for the “Qur’an Only Religion“.

The two reasons that ‘Qur’an Only Religion’ would want to reject the dominant narrative are these:

  1. The very first word ‘iqra‘ suggests that the Qur’an is composed in a language that has depth, nuances, clarity, and ambiguity.    This takes the wind out of one of their sails. Namely, that the Qur’an is clear; which usually means “Agree with our interpretation.”
  2. The very first word ‘iqra’ also suggests that the Qur’an would be transmitted through both written and oral means. The idea that the Qur’an would be transmitted orally is problematic to those who castigate oral transmission in its entirety.

Understand that point 2. above is their sole reason for making the claim that the Blessed Prophet (saw) wrote the Qur’an. It is because they do not like the idea of the Qur’an being preserved through oral transmission.

This might cause other uncomfortable thoughts like: “What else may be preserved through oral transmission?“

The “Qur’an Only Religion” does not like the historical narrative that has been passed down to us about how the Blessed Messenger (saw) received the revelation.

Let us see if their perspective holds true.

“Read in the name of your Lord Who created. He created man from a clot. Read and your Lord is Most Honorable,” (Qur’an 96:1-3)

If the Blessed Messenger (saw) is being asked to ‘read‘ rather than recite/repeat, where is this text at?

In other words, whoever is telling Muhammed (saw) to read, what exactly is he being asked to read? Is it a divine template? Is this an ethereal revelation that is appearing like a holographic image?

Wouldn’t it make sense to say, ‘write‘?

So let us deal with the next point.

“Who taught (to write) with the pen. Taught man what he knew not.”  (Qur’an 96:4-5)

So the “Qur’an Only Religion” will say, “How can Muhammed be taught by the PEN if he cannot write?“

However, this assumes two things.

  1. That this verse does not generally address the gift of literacy, which is a blessing from Allah (swt).
  2. That Muhammed (saw) is the one being addressed here.  After all, the verse does say, taught man (plural)…
  3. . To suggest that the above verse is imperative. Meaning that Allah (swt) has taught every person to read that would be incorrect. Vast swathes of humanity still cannot read. The proliferation of literacy is a modern phenomenon.

“In honored sheets, exalted and purified, In the hands of scribes noble, virtuous.” (Qur’an 80:13-16)

It would have been a perfect occasion to say, “I will teach you the use of the pen, or I will teach you that which you know not.”

In fact, we never get an example of the Blessed Messenger (saw) reading the Qur’an to anyone.  However, we do have examples of him reciting it.

“A messenger from Allah, reciting pure pages.” (Qur’an 98:2)

“Move not thy tongue concerning the (Qur’an) to make haste therewith. It is for Us to collect it and promulgate it; but when We have promulgated it, follow thou its recital’ (Qur’an 75: 16-19).

Why not ‘move not thy eyes‘ concerning the Qur’an?

Why not ‘move not thy pen‘ concerning the Qur’an?

It is interesting to note here that the Blessed Messenger (saw) was told to not be hasty in his recitation; nothing about ‘move not thy pen‘ concerning the Qur’an.

Now we are going to use a translation of the Qur’an that we think is one of the worst possible. Interestingly enough, this translation gets as close as is grammatically possible to supporting the proposition that the Blessed Messenger (saw) wrote the Qur’an.

So we are going to use a translation that actually favours our interlocutors (Qu’ran only Religion) in this regard.

“Neither did you (O Muhammed SAW) read any book before it (this Quran), nor did you write any book (whatsoever) with your right hand. In that case, indeed, the followers of falsehood might have doubted.”  (Qur’an 29:48) – Muhsin Khan translation.

We would encourage the readers to see how this verse is translated from disparate translations from translators with disparate theological backgrounds etc…

http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/29/48/default.htm

The reason we chose the ‘Muhsin Khan’ translation above; is because it can give the impression that Muhammed (saw) didn’t read any book before the Qur’an; meaning he can now! Nor has he (saw) written any book (until now!!)…

So let us put our focus on the second part of this verse…

“In that case, indeed, the followers of falsehood might have doubted.”

Let us say that for the sake of argument we take the understanding of those who claim the Blessed Prophet (saw) wrote the Qur’an. Meaning that, suddenly, Muhammed (saw) is now able to read and write.

How does that alleviate the doubt of unbelievers?

It seems the argument being made is that “Haha, you can’t doubt that the Qur’an is a product of Muhammed because he can read and write, and therefore wrote it!

Erm…….. (stares off blankly into space)….. are we missing something here?

What argument is that?  Seriously?

We would encourage anyone to carefully read how “Qur’an Only Religion” will posture in regard to the above verse.  They half quote it.

Let us look at some of their other claims.

“Moreover, they say, “Legends of the former peoples which he has written, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon.” (Qur’an 25:5)

We actually found this argument to be very desperate.  The fact that (unbelievers) alleged that the Blessed Messenger (saw) wrote down the Qur’an is now proof that he actually did write the Qur’an?

This is a specious argument for anyone who is intellectually honest.

“We know indeed that they say, “It is a man that teaches him.” The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear.” (Qur’an 16:103)

“Moreover, the Unbelievers would almost trip you up with their eyes when they hear the Message; and they say: “Surely he is possessed!” (Qur’an 68:51)

Let’s stop for a moment on this above claim.  The claim that ‘he is possessed.’ 

This is a very fascinating and insightful claim against our Blessed Prophet (saw). The unbelievers ascribed to the Qur’an a supra natural origin. They were just not ready to say that it came from Allah. However, the fact that even they ascribed to it a supra natural origin is quite powerful.

Let us follow the fuzzy logic given to us by these people who claim that the Blessed Messenger (saw) could read and write the Qur’an.

So here it is:

Just because the (unbelievers) charged Muhammed (saw) with writing the Qur’an, does it also follow that a man taught him the Qur’an?

Just because the (unbelievers) charged Muhammed (saw) that he was possessed means that it is true?

So those people who make such claims would do well to remember it was non-Muslims who charged that the Prophet Muhammed (saw) wrote the Qur’an.

The first claim that the Blessed Messenger (saw) wrote the Qur’an came from (unbelievers).  That is the company that followers of the ‘Quran Only‘ religion are in; not the company we would like to be in.

Another text they would use.

“And if he had invented false sayings concerning Us We surely should have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might), And then severed his life-artery.” (Qur’an 69:44-46)

There is certainly a lot to be desired in this translation.

Invented is taqawwala -this should have been translated as spoken

That word is nowhere being used for writing.

See the following: http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=qwl#(69:44:2)

sayings is l-aqawili

So this should read: “And if he had spoken some sayings over Us, We surely should have...”

seized him –la-akhadhna-can be translated as to take or to seize or to call to account.

his right hand-bil-yamini-can be translated as hand or oath.

So this should read: “And if he had spoken some sayings over Us, We surely should have seized him with power and might.”

Alternatively, it could read: “And if he had spoken some sayings over Us, We surely would have called him to account for his oath.”

The first part is how we understand the second part. If someone is speaking and saying it would make sense to say, ‘we seize him by his tongue.’

That is why that argument put forward by the ‘Hafs Qur’an Only Religion’ is easily dismissed. When someone is speaking lies, why is the attention directed towards the hand?

So let us take their understanding and translate it the way they want to: “We surely should have seized him by his right hand.”

Why doesn’t the text before it say:

“So if he had written false sayings concerning Us.”

None of them dare to translate as written.

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/69/44/

“Had he uttered any other teachings.”-Rashad Khilafa

“Also, had he attributed anything falsely to Us.”-The Monotheist Group.

In fact, the only person trying to be sly among the Quraniyoon in their translation is Shabir Ahmed

“So if he had ascribed his sayings unto Us.” -Shabir Ahmed

Why handle the Qur’an in such a false manner? Why the deception? What is the agenda here?

Was the Qur’an only revealed to those who were literate?  Even today, there are vast areas of the world where people cannot read and write. What of the situation in the past? What was the situation of slaves, farmers, and people from other trades?

How was a textual Qur’an distributed to all of these people? If that is the case, why is there a dearth of written Qur’anic material from the early period?

“However, if they turn away, you are responsible only for conveying the message clearly.” (Qur’an 16:82)

If the Blessed Messenger (saw) was writing the Qur’an and the Qur’an is clear, there would be no need for him to explain anything to anyone. He would simply tell them to refer to the book itself!  Better yet to their own written copies, parchments, etc. I think we know better.

We think the idea that the Blessed Messenger (saw) wrote the Qur’an is both intellectually lazy and the result of wanting to skirt around the issue of the preservation through oral transmission of the Qur’an.

We think that issues are nuanced, and sometimes a little more academically challenging than we are ready to admit.  Some answers are simply not microwavable.

Something else we want to point out.   Was it possible that the Blessed Messenger (saw) learned to recognize and understand some words in the Arabic script over time? Of course!

When our colleague was the Executive Docent Officer at the Singapore Sultan Mosque and leading the ATMT (Awareness Through Mosque Tour) program, they used to have fun showing copies of the Qur’an to curious non-Muslims.

They would open a page of the Qur’an that had many usages of the word ‘Allah‘ in Arabic. They would point out the word.  They would then ask them to find that word anywhere on the two pages.  They did without fail!   They asked them to read that word, and they said, ‘Allah’!

For example, they have highlighted the word ‘Allah’ in the Arabic text below.  See if you can find at least 3 other examples of it.   

quran-t

This was a great interactive experience for our colleague and them.  Our point here is that it’s possible that the Blessed Messenger (saw) was able to recognize words (after all they are simply symbols) and say or repeat what they mean.

“Neither did you (O Muhammed SAW) read any book before it (this Quran), nor did you write any book (whatsoever) with your right hand. If that was the case, indeed, the followers of falsehood might have doubted.”  (Qur’an 29:48)

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

September 19, 2025 · 1:15 pm

Blowing on Knots. Saving Muslim Marriages

And they learn from them that by which they cause separation between a man and his wife. But they do not harm anyone through it except by permission of Allah. And the people learn what harms them and does not benefit them. But the Children of Israel certainly knew that whoever purchased the magic would not have in the Hereafter any share. And wretched is that for which they sold themselves if they only knew.” (Quran 2:102-103)

﷽ 

Is it not curious that, out of all the things that people learned concerning magic that an emphasis is put on causing separation between a man and his wife? That there are extremely dark forces at play working against the foundations of a family should be something that we really think about.

In Islam, marriage completes half of one’s faith. 60% of Shari’ah law is focused on the family.

There is a significant gap between the holistic guidance of the Qur’an and Sunnah and the often-mechanistic application of certain legal rulings, particularly concerning marriage and divorce.

The Reality of Supra-Natural Forces and Their Target.

The Qur’an explicitly confirms the existence of magic and the efforts of Shaitan to sow discord, especially within the most sacred of institutions: the family.


“The Shaitan only desires to cause enmity and hatred to spring in your midst by means of intoxicants and games of chance, and to keep you off from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer.” (Qur’an 5:91)

“If an evil impulse from Shaitan provokes you, seek refuge with Allah; He is All-hearing and all-knowing.” (Qur’an 7:200)

“And march forth in the way of forgiveness from your Lord, and for Paradise as wide as the heavens and the earth, prepared for the pious. Those who spend in prosperity and in adversity, who repress anger, and who pardon the people; verily, Allah loves the good-doers.”(Qur’an 3:133-134)

“So whatever you have been given is but enjoyment for this worldly life, but that which is with Allah is better and more lasting for those who believe and put their trust in their Lord. And those who avoid the greater sins, and illegal sexual intercourse, and when they are angry, they forgive.” (Qur’an 42:36)

It can be seen from the aforementioned verses that enmity, anger, hate are things that Shaitan provokes us with. We also see that tempering our anger and forgiveness are more wholesome.

“Say: ‘I seek refuge with the Lord of Daybreak, from the evil of duality, and from the evil of the darkness as it gathers and from the evil of those who blow on knots (l-‘uqadi) and from the evil of an envier when he envies.'” (Qur’an 113:1-5)

From those who ‘blow on knots‘. The term ‘l-uqadi’ .

This term is used in the following instances of the Qur’an:

“There is no blame upon you for that to which you indirectly allude concerning a proposal to women or for what you conceal within yourselves. Allah knows that you will have them in mind. But do not promise them secretly except for saying a proper saying. And do not determine to undertake a (uq’data l-nikahi)marriage contract until the decreed period reaches its end. And know that Allah knows what is within yourselves, so beware of Him. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing.” (Qur’an 2:235)

“And in case you divorce them even before you have touched them, and you have already ordained for them a marriage-portion, then give her one half of what you have ordained except in case the women remit, or he in whose hand is the (uq’datu l-nikahi) knot of marriage remits; that you remit is nearer to piety. And do not forget the virtue of grace among yourselves; surely Allah is Ever-Beholding of whatever you do.” (Qur’an 2;237)

When you look at those instances of the word, it becomes apparent that ‘blow on knots‘ means ‘blow on marriages’. “Devise plots against marriages.”

The phrase “those who blow on knots” (an-naffathati fil ‘uqad) has a primary meaning referring to sorceresses who literally tie knots and blow spells upon them. However, the linguistic drawn to the “knot of marriage” (‘uqdat an-nikah) in verses 2:235 and 2:237 is a powerful and valid tafsir (interpretation). It highlights that one of the primary objectives of these dark forces is to unravel the sacred bond (‘aqd) between spouses. This is not a minor issue; it is a direct assault on half of a Muslim’s faith.

Aqad literally means to ‘tie’ or to ‘bind’. In English, we have the interesting idiom of ‘tying the knot‘ as a reference to getting married.

The Arabic word Khul means to ‘untie or to disrobe’.

Whereas the word Talaq means to abandon or rid oneself of something.

“Definition of “divorce” (talaq) Literally, the word “divorce” (talaq) means to abandon a thing or get rid of a thing. When an animal tied with a string is untied it is called talaq. If the tied with a string she-camel is untied, the Arabs mention this state as: “talaqa al-naqata talaqan” 23 (The she-camel has been released).”

Source: (Pg 15. Islamic Law of Marriage and Divorce by Shehza Sham)

So, if the term Talaq means to untie, to abandon or to get rid of something, it makes no sense to say to someone “I abandon you” thrice, because in order to be abandoned the second time or the third time just like saying ‘I untie you thrice’.  In order to be ‘untied’ a second or third time, you would need to be tied or in a state of ‘aqad’ for a second or third time.

If we take into account that supra-natural forces are at work in bringing about discord in Muslim marriages, why is it not taken into the calculation by certain Muslim jurists and especially those influenced by ‘tassawuf’ when deciding the fate of Muslim marriages?

Here is something that those of our brothers of the Ahl Sunnah need to take on board. If you believe the following haidth, we have a question for you.

Narrated Aisha:

Magic was worked on Allah’s Messenger (saw) so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not (Sufyan said: That is the hardest kind of magic as it has such an effect)…….the hadith is longer.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5765)

If you believe the best of creation, the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw), could be affected by magic to the extent that it created a false reality in his personal life, then it is a form of arrogance for any scholar or jurist to dismiss the possibility that ordinary Muslim couples could be acting under similar influences of anger, hatred, miscommunication, and irrational behavior provoked by Shaitan.

Until today, there has been no meaningful engagement in regard to this question. 

We also need to keep the following verses in mind:

“O Prophet! When any of you divorce women, divorce them during their period of purity and calculate their ‘idda carefully. And have fear of Allah, your Lord. Do not evict them from their homes, nor should they leave, unless they commit an outright indecency. Those are Allah´s limits, and anyone who oversteps Allah´s limits has wronged himself. You never know, it may well be that after that Allah will cause a new situation to develop.” (Qur’an 65:1)

Even though this is what the Qur’an clearly states, the jurist will allow couples’ marriages to be dissolved without asking questions like:

“Did you intend to divorce your wife while she was in menses?”

If the answer is yes, then you cannot intend to divorce your wife while she is in her menses.

If the answer is “I don’t know”, then again, you cannot intend to divorce your wife on an “I don’t know.”

Yet, we, unfortunately, know of many Muslims who have gone through the divorce process, and they have informed us that the judge, the counselor, didn’t even bother to ask this question. Most unfortunate.

Another aspect of the revelation that unfortunately gets ignored is the following:

“Then, when they have reached their term (3 months), take them back in kindness or part from them in kindness, and call to witness two just men among you, and keep your testimony upright for Allah. Whoso believes in Allah and the Last Day is exhorted to act thus. And whosoever keeps his duty to Allah, Allah will appoint a way out for him…” (Qur’an 65:2)

People do not realize it, but it is very possible for people to part amicably. Sometimes a woman cannot produce children, and she has the option to be a co-wife. Whereas, if a man cannot produce children, he does not have the option to be the co-husband.

People can decide to amicably part if having biological children is an absolute deal-breaker in a relationship. They may find, for various other reasons, that they are not suitable as partners.

Yet, unfortunately, once again, the judges or the counselors do not ask about the emotional state of the man/wife when words are uttered? The answer is no.

“If any men among you divorce their wives by Zihar (calling them mothers), they cannot be their mothers: None can be their mothers except those who gave them birth. And in fact, they use words (both) iniquitous and false: but truly Allah is one that blots out (sins), and forgives (again and again).” (Qur’an)

This verse clearly repudiates those men who would use an idiom or simply a verbal expression to divorce women. This verse is also clear when coupled with other verses about having just two witnesses present, and consultation that it repudiates instant divorce simply through pronunciation.

“They are invited to the book of Allah to settle their dispute”. (Qur’an 3:23)

“And this is a Book which We have revealed as a blessing, so follow it and be righteous, that you may receive mercy”. (Qur’an 6:155).

“Lo! this Qur’an guides to that which is most upright”. (Qur’an 17:9)

The Juristic (Fiqh) Response vs. The Holistic (Tazkiyah) Approach

The Problem: In many contemporary contexts, these two streams have become separated. A judge in a civil or family court, or even an imam acting in an advisory capacity, often wears only the hat of the jurist. They apply the law as a set of rules without the accompanying spiritual and pastoral context that is essential for dealing with something as sensitive as divorce.

The Qur’anic procedure for divorce is not a mere utterance but a process designed for contemplation and reconciliation.

Divorce during Menses (Tuhr): The ruling in (65:1) to divorce women during their period of purity is precisely to prevent a rash decision made in a state of emotional turmoil (which can sometimes coincide with a wife’s menses). A man who says “I divorce you” in a fit of rage during her menses has transgressed Allah’s law. The juristic consensus is that such a divorce is still legally effective but is considered bid’ah (reprehensible innovation) and a sin.

The practical consequence is that the marriage is often considered dissolved, and the crucial pastoral step of questioning the validity of the intention and context is skipped.

The Role of Witnesses and Kindness: Verse (65:2) emphasize kindness, witnesses, and a measured process. This stands in stark contrast to the instantaneous, often unilateral, and highly emotional divorces that occur. The Qur’anic ideal is a mediated separation, not a sudden outburst.

Before any divorce is finalized, a mandatory mediation process should be instituted that involves:

  • Questioning the emotional state and intention at the time of the utterance.
  • Investigating possible external factors (family interference, financial stress, etc.).
  • Recommending ruqyah (Qur’anic healing) if there is a legitimate suspicion of magic or evil eye.
  • Exhausting all avenues for reconciliation, as the Qur’an commands.

May Allah (swt) sanctify and bless all of your marriages. May Allah (swt) protect you all from the evil eye. May you and your spouse work out your differences. May Allah (swt) make your wife or wives appear as the most loving and beautiful of women. May Allah (swt) make your husband appear to you as the most kind, generous, understanding and handsome of men.

You might be interested in reading the following articles:

Did Imam Al-Shafi’i say you could marry your own daughter?
The position of the Ibadi school on marrying Ahl Kitab

https://primaquran.com/2023/04/05/can-a-child-of-fornication-adultery-be-an-imam/

Adultery and Post Fornication Marriages -Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/polygyny-and-redundant-revelation/

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/05/the-hypocrisy-of-bidi-talaq-innovated-divorces-weighed-against-the-wisdom-of-the-quran/

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,