“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a wife?” (Qur’an 6:101)
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)
﷽
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)
This a verse that is frequently misunderstood and used for very different, often opposing, theological arguments. We have identified the core issue: the misinterpretation of the word ṣāḥibatun (companion) and the failure to read the verse in its full rhetorical and theological context. The verse not a statement of inability or a lesson in biology. It is a powerful rhetorical device intended to shatter human-centric, anthropomorphic conceptions of God.
There are two categories of people who use this verse with two very different objectives.
Christians use this to show that the Qur’an gets Christian theology wrong.
Those that do not believe in miracles because they believe miracles violate the laws of causality. Thus, they want to negate the virgin birth of Christ Jesus.
The first category.
The Christian understanding is like the following:
Christians have no concept of The Father as having a companion. It would mean from their misunderstanding of the verse that the Qur’an is the product of a human mind. It would mean that the Qur’an has no grasp of the Christian theological position.
The second category.
“Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan (d. 1898) This famous social reformer and educationist of nineteenth-century India denied that Jesus was born of a virgin”
Source: (See his Commentary of the Quran Tafsir al-Quran, published by Munshi Fazl Din, Kashmiri Bazaar, Lahore, vol. ii, pp. 24–35. See the section titled ‘Muslim Newspaper Sidq’)
Understanding the rhetorical question.
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)
“How can Allah have a child, when He does not have a companion?”
Now the very clear and sensible understanding of this rhetorical question is simple. One Creator being contrasted with the idea of having a companion.
Who is Allah?
“Say: “Allah Is Absolutely One.” Who is independent of all and whom all depend on. He does not bring forth like-kind nor was he brought forth from like-kind; And there is none comparable to Him.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)
Who or what is the companion in the verse?
Look at all the verb forms as well as the nouns and their use within the Qur’an.
Ṣāḥibah (from the root Ṣ-Ḥ-B) carries meanings of companion, associate, partner, consort, or one who accompanies. In this theological context, it negates any notion of a divine partner, consort, or equal—not merely a spouse.
We find it interesting that, usually, people have decided to translate the Arabic term ‘sahibatun’ as ‘wife’ rather than ‘companion’. The Arabic term ‘zawja‘ (wife) is not used in this context at all. Whereas we would have translated it as ‘companion’ and for good reason. Whereas those in categories 1 and 2 above tend to focus on the term ‘wife’.
The way that these people have misunderstood the text, we either have to choose between some of the following options:
A) A creator that is incapable: (May Allah pardon us)
In other words Allah (swt) needs assistance in creating something.
B) A creator that is like his creation: (May Allah pardon us).
In other words Allah (swt) needs assistance in creating something.
C) A creator that takes on gender roles: (May Allah pardon us)
In other words if the companion is seen as a wife (zawja) than Allah (swt) is the husband.
D) A Creator who is ignorant of Christian theology: (May Allah pardon us) /An argument against virgin birth of Jesus.
In other words Allah needs a wife (zawja) in order to have a son. Which Christians do not believe. It would be a blatant misrepresentation of their beliefs. This argument is also used by those who want to argue against the virgin birth of Jesus (as).
Dealing with proposition A. The Incapable Creator
A creator that is incapable (May Allah pardon us)
It contravenes the following verse:
“His being alone is such that when He wills a thing to be, He but says unto it, “Be” — and it is.” (Qur’an 36:82)
It seems a bit of a stretch to think that Allah (swt) would make an argument that he couldn’t have a son without a companion and yet create a vast universe from the command ‘Kun’.
“It is not for Allah to take a son; exalted is He! When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, “Be,” and it is.” (Qur’an 19:35)
It even contravenes the very verse that they quote to make their case!
Resolution: Allah’s creative power is absolute and uncaused. He does not require mechanisms, partners, or processes.
Dealing with proposition B.The Creator Like Creation:
The creator that is like his creation (May Allah pardon us).
The following verse is sufficient to refute this.
“There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)
Resolution: An originator (badīʿ) is one who creates something without any prior model or precedent, emphasizing His utter transcendence and unlike-ness to creation.
Dealing with proposition C. The Gendered Creator
That the Creator takes on gender roles.
So, if Allah (swt) is making a rhetorical argument about human relations, is Allah (swt) now taking on the role of the husband or the male progenitor? Be sensible people! Allah (swt) is drawing attention to the fact that he has no peer, no companion.
Resolution: This is a result of the mistranslation “wife.” Islam completely rejects attributing gender or physical human characteristics to Allah. The argument is about divinity, not matrimony.
Dealing with proposition D.Ignorance of Christian Theology / Argument Against Virgin Birth.
A Creator who is ignorant of Christian theology/An argument against the virgin birth of Jesus.
Ironically, proposition D is also the position taken by those who want to deny the virgin birth of Christ Jesus in the Qur’an. So they (those who believe that miracles violate the laws of causality) have ironically sided with the Christian in their misunderstanding of the verse. Albeit to reach very different ends.
Christians have no concept of The Father as having a companion. It would mean from their misunderstanding of the verse that the Qur’an is the product of a human mind. It would mean that the Qur’an has no grasp of the Christian theological position.
The questions that are put forward by those who hold the view that the virgin birth (a miracle) would violate the laws of causality would be:
Why can’t Allah (swt) have a son without a wife?
To which the reply to this is:
On what consistent basis could you make this claim if taking the verse as a whole?
Another question for them would be: Based upon your interpretation of the verse, would you be opposed to the idea of Allah (swt) having a wife or a son based upon your logic?
In other words, do you find it a theological impossibility for Allah (swt) to have a wife and/or a son?
Another question for them would be:
Why would Allah (swt) need to be like his creation in the process of bringing a son into being?
Why not look at the whole verse? Why only quote part of it?
“Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He does not have a companion, and He created all things? And He is, of all things, Knowing.” (Qur’an 6:101)
First, Allah (swt) is the originator of the heavens and the earth. Do these people now believe that there was a wife or an associate, or a partner or a companion that helped Allah (swt) in this?
What natural laws did Allah (swt) follow or was beholden to when creating our reality? The verse all says, “He created all things.”
Why do people seek out companionship/friendship/associates and peers, to begin with? Ponder it.
The need for companionship?
“They say, “Allah has taken a child.” Glory be to Him! He is Self-Sufficient. Unto Him belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is on the earth. You have no authority for this. Do you say about Allah that which you know not?” (Qur’an 10:68)
Anything that human beings can receive from companions/friends/peers and associates stems from needs, and Allah (swt) is free from needs. Whatever people get from having associates and companions Allah (swt) can simply create it. Allah (swt) is the Self-Sufficient!
“There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)
If Allah (swt) had a companion /associate/ or peer that would entail being of the exact divine nature of Allah (swt). Allah (swt) crushes that notion with the following ‘He created ALL things’.
It is only logical that you can’t have two uncreated beings.
It is only logical that you can’t have two originators. This would also entail having a walad (a child). A walad or a child would be ‘like kind’.
The following verse more than drives home this point.
“Never did Allah take to Himself a son, and never was there with him any god– in that case would each god have certainly taken away what he created, and some of them would certainly have overpowered others; glory be to Allah above what they describe.” (Qur’an 23:91)
That verse crushes the idea that Allah (swt) could even have a companion.
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)
As for those who believe that miracles violate the laws of causality and are trying to reinterpret scripture to appease atheists, they understand Allah as saying, “But if I had a wife, I could have a child.”
Which is simply theologically unsound. Their interpretation of the text ignores the whole of the verse; and worse yet, it doesn’t negate for Allah (swt) the possibility of having a companion! (May Allah pardon us).
This is the same train of thought by those who believe miracles violate the laws of causality and therefore reject the virgin birth of Christ Jesus.
The focus for people who use this text as an argument is on the word ‘walad’, whereas Allah (swt) is saying he doesn’t have a ‘sahibatun’, a companion to begin with.
Resolution:
Against Christian Critique: The Qur’an is not misrepresenting mainstream Christian theology. It is attacking the logical implication of the claim “God has a son.” From a purely logical, non-creedal standpoint, if a being has a son, that son must be of the same nature (a peer). The Qur’an argues that since Allah has no peers or companions (no other divine being), the concept of a “son” is logically incoherent. It challenges the metaphysics of the Trinity, not the biology of the Nativity.
Against the Naturalist/Mu’tazilite Critique (e.g., Sir Syed Ahmad Khan): Those who deny miracles like the virgin birth because they “violate causality” profoundly misunderstand the verse. They interpret it as, “Allah needs a wife to have a son.” This is a catastrophic error. The verse is not providing the necessary condition for divine filiation (“a wife is needed”). It is rejecting the entire paradigm as impossible. Allah does not need a wife to have a son; He transcends the very category of having offspring altogether. The miracle of Jesus’s birth (ʿĪsā ibn Maryam) is a sign of Allah’s absolute power to create as He wills (Kun fa-Yakūn), outside of natural causality, which He Himself established. To use this verse to deny the virgin birth is to completely invert its meaning.
Conclusion:
The verse in question is a masterful rhetorical tool that:
Affirms Surah Ikhlas: Allah is One, Unique, without peer, partner, or companion.
Denies Anthropomorphism: Allah is beyond human categories like gender and biological reproduction.
Establishes Logical Coherence: The concept of “divine offspring” is metaphysically absurd because it requires a plurality within the divine, which is impossible for the One who created all things and has no equal.
Upholds, Not Denies, Miracles: The power that created the heavens and the earth from nothing can certainly create a human being in a womb without a father. Denying this is a failure to understand Allah’s absolute power, which the verse itself emphasizes.
The focus is not on the word walad (son) in isolation, but on the impossible pre-condition for it: a ṣāḥibah (companion). Since the pre-condition is impossible (Allah has no companion), the conclusion (Allah has a son) is also impossible. This is a definitive negation of any form of shirk (associating partners with God) while simultaneously affirming Allah’s limitless power to create as He wills.
“Say: “Allah Is Absolutely One.” Who is independent of all and whom all depend on. He does not bring forth like-kind nor was he brought forth from like-kind; And there is none comparable to Him.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)
For those interested, you may want to read the following articles:
“The Truth is from your Lord.’ Then whoever wills, let him believe, and whoever wills, let him disbelieve.” (Qur’an 18:29)
﷽
We are very disheartened to learn that this is a position held among those who hail from the Deobandi movement. To see them fall short on this particular point of theology is hurtful. This is an important point of theological difference as it can undermine our confidence in some of the most basic and fundamental aspects of our faith.
It is clear though, that this matter has split the ranks of the Ahl Sunnah. This is the declaration of Shaykh, Saleh bin Siddina al-Maliki. He is himself a Sunni Muslim and a follower of the Maliki school of jurisprudence. The Shaykh has said that holding such a view or opinion is kufr (disbelief).
This false belief that is certainly so problematic for Muslims theologically that it is challenging to understand how anyone could entertain it, to begin with.
The theological musings of Darul Uloom Deoband have concerning Allah (swt) have to be among the most dangerous of theological speculations that have come from theology.
If we are to speak using emotive we would say that it is perhaps the absolutely most monstrous attributions to Allah (swt)! Not even the Christians ascribe the possibility of lying to Allah (swt)!
This, of course, is not speaking to the laity and the regular adherents of the Deobandi school of thought, the common person. To those valiant brothers in the Tabligh Jamaat that go out in the path of Allah (swt) and call people back to the Deen of Allah (swt). They are, for the most part, ignorant of this position. In fact, the Tablighi Jamaat are one of the greatest dawah force in the Muslim Ummah (imo).
Deobandi scholars in general are known among the Muslim scholars to be people of wara and taqwa and among those who cling to the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
That being said, we absolutely and utterly abhor the theological position that the Deobandi scholars have. Namely, that Allah (swt) can lie. (May our Rabb forgive us and bring us back to our senses.)
So first thing is first. Let us read and listen from their own sources what they say on the matter.
“Falling into the topic which you have mentioned in your question, is extremely dangerous for the Iman of a believer“
Prima Qur’an comment: Yes, it should cause anyone who has an ounce of love for Allah (swt) and understanding of sound doctrine should flee as far away from this speculation as they can!
“The ulama of Deoband have explained this issue to the best of their knowledge according to the Quran and Sunnah. Therefore we need to look at this from an academic perspective rather than an emotional one.”
Prima Qur’an comment: They are correct in that the truth is truth regardless of how we feel about it. Islam is based upon proofs and evidences.
In the article in the link above after affirming that Allah doesn’t lie they then turnaround and affirm the following possibility:
“Thereafter they explained that Allah has the power to do whatever he wants. SO IF HE WANTED TO LIE, NOBODY CAN STOP HIM. No one can take that power away from him. There is a difference between “Allah does lie” and “ALLAH CAN LIE.”
Or the monstrous assertion that it is possible for Allah (swt) to create another like him!
Watch the following video:
@ 2:11 He says, “Let no man go away today and say Shaykh Mumtaz was saying Allah CAN lie, No!”
However, he turns around @ 1:38 and says, “But the OPTION Is there for Allah (swt), because he is Haqq he will never take that OPTION.”
Prima Qur’an comment: So he is saying that he CAN and worse he says that Allah (swt) could create another Allah (swt) but chooses not to! Yikes! (Oh Allah (swt) Rabb of Grace and Abundant Mercy, please forgive us and forgive our brothers and guide them to a course that is more just than this!) Amin!
The following verse of the Qur’an that absolutely grinds to powder and scatters into the four corners of the known existence such absurd theological speculation!
“There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
So what does Shaykh Mumtaz have in mind should Allah (swt) wish to create another Allah (swt)? Some type of Binitarian belief? Or if He can create another like himself, what’s the limit? Three? Some type of Trinitarian belief?
It is our sincere hope that those from Deoband will refrain from this type of theological speculation. We hope that they recant from this position and make sincere repentance to Allah (swt). Death waits for no one.
By Allah (swt) our hearts have never felt more heavy and filled with sadness than to know that these people hold these positions!
It really does go to show you that Allah (swt) spoke the Haqq (unlike what scholars muse) when He said
“Is not Allah sufficient for His Servant? And yet, they threaten you with those they worship other than Him. And whoever Allah allows to stray-for him there is no guide. And whoever Allah guides-no one can misguide. Is not Allah Exalted in Might and Owner of Retribution?” (Qur’an 39:36-37)
Refutation of this problematic doctrine.
The first issue is part of a much larger discussion centered around the following: Allah (swt) can do anything versus Allah (swt) has power over all things. We would recommend you read that article first:
Attributes ascribed to His Self (Sifāt Dhātiyyah).
Attributes ascribed to His Actions (Sifāt Fi’liyyah).
Attributes ascribed to both His Self and His Actions (Sifāt Dhātiyyah Fi’liyyah)
The attribute of The Liar could not be attributed to category 1 because Allah (swt) has described himself as Al Haqq. It is not possible to be The Truth and The Liar simultaneously. Second the attribute of The Liar implies something eternal and external with Allah (swt). If Allah (swt) is The Liar than in relation to what? Third if Allah (swt) is to be described by the attribute of The Liar this means there can be no cohesion or symmetry in the universe. The universe can never make sense nor can it be intelligible in any meaningful way.
The attribute of lying can not be in category 2 as a possible act that Allah (swt) can dispense if he so chooses because of what is discussed in the above article: Allah can do anything versus Allah has power over all things.
Humans may need to lie or deceive due to some need, want, desire, or fear. None of this is applicable to Allah (swt). Alas, Allah (swt) does not have redundant attributes.
Lying is never a praiseworthy trait or quality.
“They think to deceive Allah and those who believe, but they deceive not except themselves and perceive it not.” (Qur’an 2:9)
“In their hearts is a disease, so Allah has increased their disease, and for them it is a painful punishment because they habitually used to lie.” (Quran 2:10)
“So He penalized them with hypocrisy in their hearts until the Day they will meet Him – because they failed Allah in what they promised Him and because they habitually used to lie.” (Qur’an 9:77)
“And who is more unjust than one who invents a lie about Allah or says, ‘It has been inspired to me,’ while nothing has been inspired to him, and one who says, ‘I will reveal something like what Allah revealed.’ And if you could but see when the wrongdoers are in the overwhelming pangs of death while the angels extend their hands, saying, ‘Discharge your souls! Today you will be awarded the punishment of [extreme] humiliation for what you used to say against Allah other than the truth and that you were, toward His verses, being arrogant.’” (Qur’an 6:93)
We sincerely implore the scholars of Deoband – to read these verses and immediately fall into sujud begging the Almighty Allah (swt) for forgiveness!
Dear brothers, this theological position is unbecoming of people who have produced some of the best scholars and students of knowledge in many fields of Islamic sciences!
Is this verse not befitting of them?
“Who is more unjust than one who events a lie about Allah (swt). One who says ‘it has been inspired by me’.” (Qur’an 6:93)
Dark whispering to the subconscious mind that found fertile ground within their minds and souls to plant the most insidious theological speculation.
Surely Allah (swt) is our salvation! May Allah (swt) protect us from the evil insinuations of the one who whispers.
Allah (swt) says:
“Moreover, they have no knowledge. They follow not except assumption, and indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all.” (Qur’an 53:28)
“And a believing man from the family of Pharaoh who concealed his faith said, ‘Do you kill a man merely because he says, “My Lord is Allah” while he has brought you clear proofs from your Lord? And if he should be lying, then upon him is the consequence of his lie; but if he should be truthful, there will strike you some of what he promises you. Indeed, Allah does not guide one who is a transgressor and a liar.’ ” (Qur’an 40:28)
“However, if they intend to deceive you – then sufficient for you is Allah. It is He who supported you with His help and with the believers. “(Qur’an 8:62)
“However, We have certainly tried those before them, and Allah will surely make evident those who are truthful, and He will surely make evident the liars.”(Qur’an 29:3)
“Only they forge the lie who do not believe in Allah’s communications, and these are the liars.” (Qur’an 16:105)
“So who is more unjust than he who invents a lie about Allah? Those will be presented before their Lord, and the witnesses will say, “These are the ones who lied against their Lord.” Unquestionably, the curse of Allah is upon the wrongdoers.” (Quran 11:18)
They have no means of knowing whether they are deceived. They can only trust that they are not being deceived, but they have no certainty. This destroys the very foundation of the religion of truth, the science of hadith, and everything else along with it. The big question for anyone who holds the position that Allah (swt) CAN lie is this:
If you believe that Allah (swt) CAN lie on what objective basis, can you determine if anything from Allah (swt) to be true?
We have seem them evade this question. There is no evasion on the last day.
They have certainly erred in their theological speculation about the divine by having the audacity to attribute to Allah (swt) the capacity and capability to lie!
May Allah (swt) protect our minds, our hearts from the whispers of devils, and from the approach of the hellfire and from theological speculation that brings us to the very depths of darkness where there is no light therein.
Their shameful musings about Allah (swt) opened the doors of sophistry, which in turn would call into question the probity of the sources of religious knowledge altogether.
In reality, this theological speculation is an absolute feast for atheists and Christians!
How can we trust anything from Allah (swt)
The truth about Allah (swt), his oneness?
The truth about Rasul Allah (saw) being a Messenger of Allah (swt). That he is the last and final messenger?
The truth about the Qur’an is that it is a revelation from Allah (swt), the last and final message?
Issues of certainty and morality. All of these things become issues of doubt and speculation due to the theological speculation of the scholars of Deoband.
Deobandis have effectively stripped every argument Muslims have against atheists, Christians, or anyone else. Why should an agnostic trade in his/her uncertainty for the uncertainty of Muslims?
They have also put themselves in a precarious situation. It would be very difficult for any other Muslim to take it seriously or even discuss any matter or point of jurisprudence, theology, etc. with a representative of Deoband because there is nothing to be discussed. They can’t even say with all sincerity that they are upon the Haqq.
These people, the Deobandi, believe that it is possible for Allah (swt) to both lie and to be truthful! Because if Allah (swt) is Haqq and Allah (swt) does not change, then why the theological speculation with regard to this?
To say that Allah (swt) has the potential to be both liar and truth sayer not only imputes lies to Allah azzawajala but it would entail a logical contradiction.
This reminds one of the atheists.
The atheist poses the following paradoxical question.
If Allah is Infinite and Unlimited in Power, can He create a rock he cannot lift?
Which is a non-question? It is like asking if Allah (swt) can make a squared circle. It is a no-thing.
Such a rock can’t exist, not because Allah (swt) is not All-Powerful but because He is!
Allah (swt) has Unlimited, Infinite Powers. This theoretical rock would also have to have MORE than infinite and unlimited powers so that Allah (swt) could not move it. There’s no such thing as beyond infinite and unlimited, so the question is flawed.
Infinity +1 There is no such thing, there is simply infinity.
Allah (swt) cannot act contrary to his being. Allah acts consistently within his own essence, his own being.
The reason people fall into this trap is because of very poor training in theology and/or philosophy. They do not have an excellent foundation concerning the divine being. After all don’t they accept power as a basis for Allah (swt) being God? That is the whole point. There are certain qualities that make Allah, God.
Allah cannot, for example Not-Be Allah. Allah (swt) cannot be a sinner or be unholy. Allah (swt) cannot commit shirk.
Allah (swt) cannot be contained by space/time. All these things are inherent to the divine logic that is Allah (swt).
Based on logic there are things that cannot exist if another thing exists.
As Allah (swt) is Infinite and Unlimited in Power, a thing he can not do cannot exist because it violates the very principle of being Infinite and Unlimited in Power.
“He knows what is before them and what will be after them, but they do not encompass in knowledge. And all faces will be humbled before the Ever-Living, The Self Existent. And he will have failed who carries injustice.” (Qur’an 20:110-111)
Allah (swt) is described as the Ever-Living, so it is IMPOSSIBLE for Allah (swt) to die. Allah (swt can’t will himself to die because it goes against what is intrinsic to the divine logic.
Their ridiculous claim is that you deny the power of Allah (swt). So ask them in turn this very simple question that will crush their falsehood.
If Allah (swt) can do anything, can Allah (swt) create a reality where he can’t do everything?
If the answer is no, they just admitted that Allah (swt) can’t do everything.
If they say yes, then it means they admit the possibility of a reality where Allah (swt) is not able to do all things.
Another point that crushes their speculation is the following:
The difference between us and those who hold the view that Allah (swt) CAN lie when it comes to the power of Allah (swt) is this:
They believe Allah (swt) is All-Powerful based upon speculation. Whereas the believers we believe Allah (swt) is All-Powerful based upon certainty.
“To Allah is your return, and He has power over all things.'” (Qur’an 11:4)
The basis for which those who say that Allah (swt) CAN lie is this verse. However, this verse is dependent upon Allah (swt) being Haqq and only Haqq.
The Deobandis have no objective basis on which to rest their argument. Because if both Truth and Lies can come from our Lord on what objective basis do they know that the verse in Qur’an 11:4 is true to begin with? Whereas the believers we believe that Allah (swt) is Al Haqq and thus we have certainty in what Allah (swt) reveals to us. It is not POSSIBLE for Allah (swt) to lie to us.
So coming to the doctrine of the Deobandis let us see what Allah (swt) says about Truth.
“The Truth is from your Lord.’ Then whoever wills, let him believe, and whoever wills, let him disbelieve.” (Qur’an 18:29)
Allah (swt) clearly says that Truth is from Him. Otherwise the phrase -“sadaqallahul azeem” -The Truth from Allah the Almighty, it would lose all meaning.
As truth is from Allah (swt) it is not even a POSSIBILITY for non-truth to come from Allah (swt).
Allah (swt) says:
“That is because Allah He is the Truth (Al Haqq) -the Only True God of all that exists, Who has no partners or rival, the ultimate reality, and what they (those who associate) invoke besides Him, it is Batil (falsehood) And verily, Allah He is the Highest, The Most Great.” (Qur’an 22:62)
“Truth has come and falsehood has vanished. Surely, falsehood is ever bound to vanish.” (Qur’an 17:81)
“No! We hurl the Truth against Falsehood, and it crushes it. Behold, falsehood does perish! Woe to you for the false things you ascribe.” (Qur’an 21:18)
Oh, Allah (swt) please guide these people. Guide them and us. How can they attribute to Allah (swt) a possible attribute that can vanish or be overcome by other attributes?
Subhan’Allah! What more evidence do the Deobandi need?
May Allah (swt) bring us from darkness into light and may Allah (swt) cause the Muslims to be on guard against this type of theological speculation.
Allah (swt) says that He is Al Haqq. Allah (swt) says that is The Truth. Allah (swt) clearly contrasts himself with batil (falsehood). Allah (swt) cannot contain both batil and haqq and have this as part of his being. Both can never be attributed to Allah (swt)
Allah (swt) says:
“Truly, it is not the eyes that grow blind, but it is the hearts which are in the breast that grow blind.” (Qur’an 22:46)
Allah (swt) says:
“So do not mix the truth with falsehood or conceal the truth while you know it.” (Qur’an 2:42)
Mixing truth with falsehood is something that sinful man does. Are we going to really attribute the ability to mix truth with falsehood to the one who shaped and formed us in the womb, who provides for our every need, who is the very Lord of the Throne?!!
Moreover, again we have:
“So to Allah belong the best names, so invoke Him by them. And leave [the company of] those who practice deviation concerning His names. They will be recompensed for what they have been doing.” (Qur’an 7:180)
How could they even conceive as a possibility that one of the best attributes of Allah (swt) could be “The Untruthful” ?!?
This is what Allah (swt) says about those who believe that Allah (swt) has the potential of having sons.
“Where at the heavens might well-nearly be rent into fragments, and the earth be split asunder, and the mountains fall down in ruins!” (Qur’an 19:90)
This is for attributing to Allah (swt) the mere potentiality of having sons can you imagine what Allah (swt) has in store for those who would attribute the mere possibility and potentiality of being “The Lord of Untruthfulness“? May Allah (swt) forgive them and us. May Allah (swt) guide them and us.
Deoband certainly needs to reconsider this. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain by simply stating that this is no longer a theological position that they hold to. Their scholars believe that Allah (swt) CAN lie.
They give arguments and ammunition that will unfortunately tickle the imagination of the enemies of the faith.
As shown in the video above even one of their learned people believes that Allah (swt) CAN create another Allah (swt) !!
“Therefore be patient; surely the promise of Allah is true and let not those who have no certainty hold you in light estimation. (Qur’an 30:60)
Dear readers, fellow Muslim brothers and sisters reading this. We strongly advocate for unity and cooperation among all Muslims. We are very strongly against this theological position of Deoband.
We would implore, urge, beg them to reconsider it. If not for the good of this Muslim ummah, for the safety and passage of their own well-being into the next life. To refrain from stating with the tongue theological speculation that can not bring any good. If we human beings are not infallible and a scholar is not infallible, what harm would come to Deoband, and its reputation if they simply admitted to an error here? Everyone in the Muslim Ummah knows there are giants of knowledge among them.
We humbly thank Allah that he saved us from what others have been afflicated with.
“And say: …So, after the truth, what else can there be, save error?” (Qur’an 10:32)
“To Allah is your return, and He has power over all things.’” (Qur’an 11:4)
“Verily, His Command, when He intends a thing (shayan), is only that He says to it, “Be!” and it is! So Glorified is He and Exalted above all that they associate with Him, and in Whose Hands is the dominion of all things (shayin), and to Him you shall be returned.” (Qur’an 36: 82-84)
“Say, Allah is the absolutely one. All is dependent upon Allah but Allah is independent of all. Allah is not generated from like-kind and like-kind is not generated from Allah. There is no equivalent to this absolute oneness.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)
﷽
There is a very important theological point that we as Muslims must understand. That theological point is the difference between saying that Allah (swt) can do anything and saying that Allah (swt) has power over all things.
There is no-thing and there is something. A no-thing is non-existent. It has no existence to begin with. It has no reality. Whereas a ‘shay’ or thing has existence. It has a reality.
If you were to ask any Muslim, does Allah (swt) have power over nothing? We will respond, of course not! Allah (swt) has power over everything.
So the three options are:
Allah has power over nothing.
Allah has power over somethings.
Allah has power over all things.
“To Allah is your return, and He has power over all things.’” (Qur’an 11:4)
One of the issues seems to be the question of what makes God, God.
Allah is all Powerful. Allah is all Knowledgeable. Allah is eternally Self-Existent. Allah is The Truth and the Ever Living. These are not some attributes of Allah (swt) it is what Allah (swt) IS!
These only appear to be multiple attributes due to our own limited perception and understanding and usage of language.
“There is nothing (shayon) like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
So unfortunately, many Muslims in the field of Daw’ah will often get caught up in the trick question posed by Christian missionaries. “Can God become a man?” The answer to that is no, God cannot become a man because it is a no-thing. It is a non-shay.
You could ask Christians, for example: “Can God Sin?” “Can God Lie?” “Can darkness dwell in God?” “Can the Trinity exist without the Son?”
This reminds one of the atheists.
The Atheist who poses the following paradoxical question.
If Allah is Infinite and Unlimited in Power can He create a rock he cannot lift?
Which is a non-question. It is a non-shay, a no-thing.
It is like asking if Allah (swt) can make a squared circle. It is a no-thing. A non-shay.
Such a rock can’t exist, not because Allah (swt) is not All-Powerful but because He is!
Allah (swt) has Unlimited, Infinite Power. This theoretical rock would also have to have MORE than infinite and unlimited power so that Allah (swt) could not move it. There’s no such thing as beyond infinite and unlimited, so the question is flawed.
Infinity +1. There is no such thing, there is simply infinity.
Based on logic, there are things that could not exist if another thing existed.
As Allah (swt) is Infinite and Unlimited in Power, a thing he can not do cannot exist because it violates the very principle of being Infinite and Unlimited in Power.
Allah (swt) cannot act contrary to his being. Allah acts consistently within his own essence, his own being.
Allah can do anything, versus Allah has power over all things?
The reason people fall into this trap is because of very poor training in theology and/or philosophy. They do not have a very solid foundation concerning the divine being.
Please reflect on this dear reader. Do tafakkur (reflection).
After all, the people who ask if Allah (swt) can do anything obviously must accept power as a basis for Allah (swt) being God, or they will not ask the questions to begin with. That is the whole point. There are certain qualities that make Allah, God.
Allah cannot, for example, not be Allah. Allah (swt) cannot be a sinner or be unholy. Allah (swt) cannot commit shirk. Allah (swt) cannot be ignorant. Allah (swt) cannot be dead or die. Allah (swt) cannot be contained by space/time.
All these examples are no things. They are non-shay.
All the aforementioned examples are contrary to divine logic, that is Allah (swt).
Allah doesn’t have power over nothing. Allah has power over all things.
“And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them.” (Qur’an 4:159)
﷽
The misunderstanding of the verse is used as evidence for them to believe in some ‘Second Coming’ of Jesus (as).
You may look at all the various ways the verse has been translated into English here:
In this article we will focus on the justifications and proofs as they are given by the respected Mufti Zameel Ur Rahman. That is because what he statesis the majority view on the matter.
MUFTI ZAMEEL UR RAHMANS UNDERSTANDING OF QUR’AN 4:159
Let us examine what Mufti Zameel Ur Rahman has put forward:
“These verses then state that the Jews will believe in him before he dies. That is, before ‘Īsā (‘alayhissalām) dies (after he defeats the Dajjāl), the Jews that are remaining on the earth will all believe in him as the Messiah/Masīḥ about whom they were foretold. This is the dominant interpretation of the concluding verse that reads: “There will be none from the people of the scripture [i.e. Jews] but will believe in him before his death.” This has been recorded authentically from Abū Hurayrah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) (see below).”
“Al-Ṭabarī transmits through two chains from Sufyān al-Thawrī from Abū Ḥaṣīn from Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr from Ibn ‘Abbās that he said “before his death” means “before the death of ‘Īsā ibn Maryam”. (Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī, Maktabah Hajr, 7:664) This is an authentic chain.”
“He also narrates with an authentic chain to the Tābi‘ī, Abū Mālik Ghazwān al-Ghifārī (ca. 25 – 100 H), that he said of this verse: “That is, upon the descent of ‘Īsā ibn Maryam – none from the people of the scripture will remain but will believe in him.” (ibid. 7:665) He also transmits with an authentic chain to the eminent Tābi‘ī, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (21 – 110 H), that he said: “Before the death of ‘Īsā. By Allāh! He is now alive in the presence of Allāh; but when he comes down, they will all believe in him.” (ibid.)”
“This is also transmitted from the mufassir of the Tābi‘īn, Qatādah ibn Di‘āmah. Al-Ṭabarī also transmits authentically from ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam (d. 182), a mufassir from the Tab‘ Tābi‘īn, that he said of this verse: “When ‘Īsā ibn Maryam descends and then kills the Dajjāl, no Jew will remain on the earth but will believe in him.” (ibid. 7:666)”
“Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī explains that this is the most correct explanation. (ibid. 7:672) He explains that thus the meaning of the verse is: “[There is none from the people of the book] but will believe in ‘Īsā before the death of ‘Īsā – and that is about a specific [group] of the people of the book; those intended are the people of one particular time from them, not people of all times, who came after ‘Īsā; and that this will occur after his descent.” (ibid. 7:674)”
“Similarly, Ibn Kathīr says after mentioning this interpretation: “This opinion is the truth,” (Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr, Maktabah Awlād al-Shaykh, 4:342), and further states: “There is no doubt that what Ibn Jarīr said [giving preference to this interpretation] is what is correct, as that is what was intended from the context of the verses.” (ibid. 4:344) As Ibn Kathīr mentions, it is clear from the context that this is what is meant. The verses are talking about the Jews’ claim to have executed ‘Īsā (‘alayhissalām). Allāh says they did not kill or execute him but Allāh raised him up to Himself. Furthermore, not one of them will remain but will believe in ‘Īsā before his actual death. Hence, these verses clearly demonstrate that ‘Īsā (‘alayhissalām) was not killed, but was taken up alive into the sky, and further indicate that he will return and the Jews who remain (after he kills the Dajjāl) will believe in him.”
Notice that Mufti says,
“These verses then state that the Jews will believe in him before he dies. That is, before ‘Īsā (‘alayhissalām) dies (after he defeats the Dajjāl).”
However, that is not what the verse says, and he knows this! If he was simply reading the traditions into the commentary, that is one thing, but forcing them into the text is altogether dishonest!
“This is the dominant interpretation.” Well, Mufti, on what basis do you say this is the ‘dominant interpretation’ ? Can you tell us the total amount of tafsir literature you studied on this matter to conclude this? Also, if this is the ‘dominant interpretation’, it is by your own admission not necessarily the only one!
Truth vs. Popularity: The truth is not a matter of democratic opinion but of sound evidence from the Quran itself.
Next, Mufti seems to quote from a disparate number of tafsir commentaries (albeit selectively). So let’s keep count, shall we?
Tafsir #1, Ibn Kathir
Tafsir #2, Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari
Tafsir #3, Qatada ibn Di’amah
Looking at the Tafsir of Qatada Ibn Di’amah.
Qatada Ibn Dia’ama has two traditions — disconnected from unknown sources about (Qur’an 4:157-158)
“And it was related to us that the prophet of God, Jesus son of Mary, said to his disciples: ‘Who of you will have my likeness [shibh/shabah] cast upon him and thereby be killed? One of the disciples said, ‘I, Oh prophet of God!’ ‘Thus that man was killed and God protected [mana’a] His prophet as HE RAISED HIM TO HIMSELF.
Concerning his statement: “AND THEY DID NOT KILL HIM AND THEY DID NOT CRUCIFY HIM, BUT IT APPEARED SO TO THEM. Qatada said: ‘The likeness of Jesus was cast upon one of his disciples, and he was killed. Jesus had appeared before them and said: “Whoever of you will have my likeness cast upon him will have paradise.” And one said: “Upon me!”
Prima Qur’an comments:
Qatada Ibn Dia’ama has two traditions from disconnected unknown sources.
This information is from Israʼiliyyat material.
There is a 700 year gap in the chain of transmission!
Also notice how there is no attempt to identify or name the substitute.
Looking at the Tafsir of Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari
Al-Tabari cites eleven traditions all going back to Wahb ibn Munabbih concerning (Qur’an 4:157-158)
Here is the verdict of Al-Tabari:
“Or the affair was according to what ‘Abd al-Samad related (that is the second tradition) from Wahb ibn Munabbih, that is, that the people who were with ‘Isa in the house scattered from the house before the Jews came upon him. ‘Isa remained, and his LIKENESS was cast upon one of his companions, who still remained with him in the house. And ‘Isa was RAISED UP, and one who was changed in the LIKENESS of ‘Isa was killed. And his companions through that the one CRUCIFIEDwas ‘Isa, because of what they saw happens to the one who was made to look like him. And the truth of the matter was hidden from them, because his being RAISED UP and the changing of the one who was killed into his LIKENESS happened after the SCATTERING of his friends. and [because] they [had] heard ‘Isa that night announce his death, and mourn because he thought that death was approaching him. And they related what happened as true, but the affair with God was really quite different from what they related. And those disciples who related this do not deserve to be called liars.”
Source: (Al-Tabari, vol 9, p 374)
Remember that Al-Tabari is getting his information from Wahb ibn Munabbih, so maybe we spend just a little bit of time on him.
Remember that Mufti Zameel ur Rahman had the following to say about Mufti Abu Layth on the matter:
“Recently, an individual has been promoting the misguided belief that the Prophet ‘Īsā (‘alayhissalām) will not return, claiming that this is an idea that has mistakenly been imported into Islām and the teachings of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) from Christianity.”
Well, let us see if Mufti Zameer ur Rahman would be humble enough to apologize to Mufti Abu Layth concerning Wahb ibn Munabbih:
“It is not known clearly if he converted to Islam from Judaism or that his father is a convert from Judaism. There are various reports.” “He was known for reporting Isra’ilyyat material. -well known.” “He required a reputation from trustworthy to audacious liar.”
Source: (Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Khallikān (d. 1282 CE) and his work Wafayāt al-aʿyān wa-anbāʾ abnāʾ al-zamān (وفيات الأعيان وأنباء أبناء الزمان,) The Obituaries of Eminent Men and the History of the Contemporaries p. 673)
Ibn Khallikān was a renowned Shafi’i jurist, judge (qāḍī), and historian of the 13th century. He is celebrated for his scholarly rigor and intellectual integrity.
Ibn Ishaq used his work for the beginnings of Christianity but did not take from him as a source for the Prophet (saw) biography!
Ibn Khaldun didn’t have a high opinion, mentioning that he frequently told flat lies.
Source: (“Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits,” xx.part 1, p. 461; De Slane, Ibn Ḥallikan, iii. 673, note 2 | Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque du Roi et autres bibliothèques.
For the English readers: (Notices and Extracts from the Manuscripts of the King’s Library and Other Libraries. The Citation (xx.part 1, p. 461): This refers to Volume 20, Part 1, page 461. The article claims that on this page, there is a discussion about Wahb ibn Munabbih that references Ibn Khaldun’s low opinion of him.
Companions and scholars like Abdullah ibn Mas’ud warned people not to learn Tafsir from the ‘Ahl Kittab’ and his argument was that they may use it to interpolate their own biblical beliefs, teachings and history replacing the Islamic belief and preaching.
Source: (Dr. Muhammed Husayn al-Dhahabi and his monumental work Al-Tafsīr wa al-Mufassirūn (التفسير والمفسرون, Quranic Exegesis and Its Exegetes Volume 1)
Why Dr. Dhahabi’s scholarship is important.
al-Dhahabi provides a powerful, mainstream Sunni scholarly critique of the very sources that underpin the traditional narrative about Jesus’ death. The reference serves several key argumentative purposes:
Historical Validation of the Problem: Al-Dhahabi meticulously documents how these foreign narratives entered Islamic scholarship. This was primarily through early converts from Judaism and Christianity (like Ka’b al-Aḥbār, Wahb ibn Munabbih, and Abdullah ibn Salam) who, while well-intentioned, began to fill in the gaps in Quranic stories with details from their own traditions. This gives historical credence to the warning from the Companion Abdullah ibn Mas’ud that the article also references.
al-Dhahabi, argues that the classical commentaries on verses like 4:157-159 are contaminated with unreliable material. Al-Dhahabi’s work is essentially a scholarly condemnation of the uncritical acceptance of Isrā’īliyyāt.
So let us take a look again at what Al-Tabari believed:
“Or the affair was according to what ‘Abd al-Samad related (that is the second tradition) from Wahb ibn Munabbih, that is, that the people who were with ‘Isa in the house scattered from the house before the Jews came upon him. ‘Isa remained, and his LIKENESS was cast upon one of his companions, who still remained with him in the house. And ‘Isa was RAISED UP, and one who was changed in the LIKENESS of ‘Isa was killed. And his companions through that the one CRUCIFIED was ‘Isa, because of what they saw happens to the one who was made to look like him.And the truth of the matter was hidden from them, because his being RAISED UP and the changing of the one who was killed into his LIKENESS happened after the SCATTERING of his friends. and [because] they [had] heard ‘Isa that night announce his death, and mourn because he thought that death was approaching him. And they related what happened as true, but the affair with God was really quite different from what they related. And those disciples who related this do not deserve to be called liars.”
Source: (Al-Tabari, vol 9, p 374)
Prima Qur’an comments:
So, basically, in this narrative, Allah (swt) didn’t fool the non-believers, but he actually fooled the believing disciples of Jesus into believing that He (Jesus) was killed—when he wasn’t?!? Also, the 12 disciples couldn’t use logic, deduction and simple basic math and say, (Well, you know Jesus is gone and so is ….such and such disciple) Hey, maybe Jesus didn’t die?! Maybe so-and-so took his place! Notice the obfuscation especially with the quote from Qatada Ibn Dia’ama? We don’t get to know who this legendary disciple is? Who is this masked man? Oh well, you can hear them saying, ‘it doesn’t matter his reward is with his Lord’.
Looking at the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir
So what is the view of Ibn Kathir concerning Qur’an 4:157-158?
“They disobeyed Jesus and tried to harm him in every possible way, until God led His prophet away from them-Jesus and Mary traveled extensively to avoid such persecution. Ultimately, the Jews notified the King of Syria that there was a man in the holy house was was charming and subverting the people. The king wrote to his deputy in Jerusalem to be on guard against this. Moreover, the deputy was instructed to crucify the culprit (Jesus) and place thorns on his head to stop him from harming the flock. The deputy obeyed the order and led a group of Jews to where Jesus was staying with his twelve or thirteen followers. When Jesus was aware that they were after him, he asked for a volunteer to take his place. One stepped forward and was taken by the Jews and crucified, while Jesus was himself raised through the roof of the house. The Jews then announced that they had crucified Jesus and boasted about it. In their ignorance and lack of intellect ,a number of Christians accepted this claim. The fact that the other disciples had seen Jesus raised was ignored. Everyone else though that the Jews had crucified Jesus.”
Source: (Ibn Kathir, ‘Umdat al-tafsir, ed Ahmad Muhammed Shakir, 5 vols located in: vol 4 pp.28-34)
Prima Qur’an comments :
So notice how Ibn Kathir’s commentary is totally different from Al-Tabari on very key points. Again, obfuscation is a common theme. We don’t know if Jesus had 12 or 13 disciples. The brave unsung hero disciple who just jumped at the chance to be killed (we have no idea who he is). However, unlike Al-Tabari, who was ready to accept on face value the claim of Jesus’ disciples — although they were apparently fooled by Allah (swt), Ibn Kathir isn’t ready to pen that on the disciples. Instead, he simply offers that the Christians were ignorant and lacked intellect, so they accepted that Jesus died. The fact that ‘other disciples’ saw what went down was just simply ignored.
Summary of the Tafsir Sources:
The three tafsir sources that Mufti Zameer ur Rahman are all ultimately reliant upon anonymous, disconnected chains and sources that are traceable to the very sources (Ahl Kitab) that Ibn Masud warned us about!
How can Mufti Zameer ur Rahman (and anyone else who holds his position) claim with confidence that they know what (Qur’an 4:157-159) is talking about? This so-called ‘unified tradition’ holds disparate and conflicting perspectives that are frankly all over the place.
The testimony of Ibn Masud (ra)
Al-Barqānī informed me, saying: Abū Bakr al-Ismāʿīlī narrated to us, saying: I heard Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥāfiẓ, and he was asked about tafsīr (Qur’an exegesis): From where should a person begin it? He replied: From the Book of Allah, the Exalted. If that is difficult for him, then he should rely upon the transmitted reports (al-athar). If that is difficult for him, then he should resort to reasoning (al-naẓar). Then he said: It is necessary that above all of this he gives precedence to the Book of Allah. Then he said: I heard Abū al-ʿAbbās Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq al-Thaqafī say: I heard ʿAbdān ibn Aḥmad say: I heard ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Mubārak say: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd used to say: ‘Transmit the Qur’an (faithfully), and do not follow the People of the Book, for indeed they relate to you the most false of narrations, and they burden you with their falsehoods.”
Source: ( Imam Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi Work: Al-Jāmi‘ li-Akhlāq al-Rāwī wa Ādāb al-Sāmi‘ (الجامع لأخلاق الراوي وآداب السامع) – A Compendium of the Ethics of the Narrator and the Etiquette of the Listener. Volume 1, Page 289 )
Chapter: The Qurra from among the Companions of the Prophet (saws)
Narrated Masriq:
`Abdullah bin `Amr mentioned `Abdullah bin Masud and said, “I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet (saw) saying, ‘Take (learn) the Qur’an from four: `Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu`adh and Ubai bin Ka`b.’ “
“Waki’ narrated to us, from Sufyan, from Abu Hasin, from Abu Wa’il, from Abdullah (ibn Mas’ud), who said:
‘When the People of the Book narrate to you, do not believe them nor disbelieve them. Rather, say: “We believe in what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to you.”‘”
Source: (Al-Musannaf by Ibn Abi Shaybah, Dar al-Taj, Riyadh (1st ed., 1409 AH), Volume 6, Page 101, Hadith Number 29990.)
The testimony of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah’s Messenger (saw) said (to the Muslims). “Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, ‘We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.’ “
Conclusion: In the Ibadi school we will take the firm testimony of the Blessed Prophet (saw). We will take the advice of one of the best people to learn the Qur’an from, Ibn Masud (ra). What we will not do is take the testimony of a person who is narrating Israʼiliyyat with a 700-year gap in the chain of transmission. What we will do is disobey the Blessed Prophet (saw) by taking this material from the people of the book as if they inform us about our religion!
You find that the Sunni and the Shi’i get themselves into a huge exegetical mess over this. They somehow imagine that Qur’an4:157 is speaking about something the Romans are claimed to have done to Jesus!
Ahl al-Haqq wa-l istiqama (The People of Truth and Straightness)The Ibadi school and Quran 4:159
How does the Ibadi school understand Qur’an 4:159?
“And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them.” (Qur’an 4:159)
The death mentioned here could refer either to the death of Jesus (as) or to the death of each and every Jew. The text lends itself to both meanings.
It is important to note that from the (Qur’an 4:153-to 4:159) the entire theme is directed towards Jews.
None among the Jews that Jesus preached to but that it is a prerequisite for them to believe in him before their death.
Jesus is a witness against those who witnessed his preaching and rejected him.
If the people died believing in Jesus, then he would be a witness for them, not against them.
This is confirmed by: “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)
Who else would he be a witness against?
What is so special about those particular Jews who are alive when Jesus (as) supposedly returns is that they get to witness and see Jesus (as) whereas the Jews who have lived for the last 2000 years simply died upon batil (falsehood)?
If we believe in the interpretation that Mufti Zameer ur Rahman gives (and those like him) they need to answer the following questions:
Why would Jesus be a witness against them if they all died believing in him?
Wouldn’t Jesus be a witness against those who did not believe in him?
If you interpret it, none must believe in him, but before their death, surely thousands of Jews and Christians died without believing Jesus was a prophet.
How can this apply to Christians if they already believe in him?
How do you answer that if it meant to believe in him as a prophet before his alleged return, then he wouldn’t need to be a witness against them anyway.
Prove grammatically that Qur’an 4:159 is a break in theme from 4:153 onwards and refers to some future eschatological event.
Prove grammatically and thematically that the verse in question includes Christians.
Further Proofs:
“And when Allah will say: O Jesus son of Mary! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah, he will say: Glory be to You, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, You would indeed have known it; You know what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in your mind, surely you are the great Knower of the unseen things. I did not say anything to them except what you commanded me with: That worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness over them as long as I was among them, but when you caused me to die (Arabic: Tawafaytani), you were the watcher over them, and you are witness of all things.” (Qur’an 5:116-117)
There are several things to take from the above passage:
1) This dialogue takes place on the Day of Judgment, where Prophet Jesus suggests that he has no knowledge of what has happened since his demise on Earth and after his ministry ended. “I was a witness over them as long as I was among them.”
2) From the discussion, it is clear that Prophet Jesus only came to Earth once, acting as a witness over his people. If indeed there was a ‘second coming‘ before the Day of Judgment, he would have full knowledge of what had happened since his first departure. After all, he abolished the Jizya and forced the Christians to convert to Islam. This conversation with Allah (swt) would make little to no sense.
3) Imagine if the ahadiths that are put in the mouth of the Blessed Prophet (saw) were true for a moment. So now Jesus (as) comes back and everyone becomes a Muslim. The Dajjal is defeated. Jesus (as) gets married. Then Allah (swt) causes Jesus (as) to die.
Then we have Jesus (as) saying after he dies to Allah (swt): “I was a witness over them as long as I was among them, but when you caused me to die, you were the watcher over them, and you are witness of all things.”
A rather bizarre understanding, it seems.
Especially if we take the following text into consideration: “And there is none from the People of the Scripture but that he will surely believe in Jesus before his death.” (Qur’an 4:159)
It is clear to all whom Allah has lifted the veils that Qur’an 5:116-117 is talking about Jesus (as) earthly life and ministry.
The very presence of Jesus creates a bizarre redundant time paradox if we are to believe the Sunni position.
Think about it.
Look at the verse again: Imagine that Allah is saying this to Jesus, who came down from the skies, fought the Dajjal, got married and died.
“Allah said, O Jesus, I shall cause you to die and will raise you up to Me and shall purify you of the ungrateful disbelieving people, and shall place those who follow you above those who deny the truth, until the Day of Judgement; then to Me shall all return and I will judge between you regarding your disputes.” (Qur’an 3:55)
If Jesus is alive in the heavens, why is he not aware of this already?
Why is he not aware that Allah has already cleared him of falsehood by the Qur’an?
Even if he wasn’t aware after 2000 plus years, then surely he would have access to the Qur’an when he came back to Earth? Would he not be aware of the text that had already cleared him? Can you imagine Jesus (as) attending the tarweeh prayers in Ramadan and hearing Qur’an 5:116-117 being recited?
Whereas if we understand the text (Qur’an 3:55) as a revelation from Allah [swt] to his Prophet Jesus (as) it at the time of his death, it comes across as very comforting and reassuring. That Allah [swt] is the cause of your death, and you will return to your lord as the statement: “Indeed, to Allah we belong and to Allah we shall return.” That he [Jesus] will be cleared of false accusations. That his followers will be superior over the detractors on the day of judgment.
Sunni Muslims begin to take a new approach to Qur’an 4:159
Jesus bin Maryam will come down to them. Their leader will step backwards so that Jesus can come forward and lead the people in prayer, but Jesus will place his hand between his shoulders and say to him: “Go forward and pray, for the Iqamah was given for you.” Then their leader will lead them in prayer. When he has finished, Jesus (as), will say: “Open the gate.” So they will open it and behind it will be Dajjal with seventy thousand Jews, each of them carrying an adorned sword and wearing a greenish cloak. When Dajjal looks at him, he will start to melt as salt melts in water. He will run away, and Jesus (as), will say: “I have only one blow for you, which you will not be able to escape!” He will catch up with him at the eastern gate of Ludd, and will kill him. Then Allah will defeat the Jews, and there will be nothing left that Allah has created which the Jews will be able to hide behind, except that Allah will cause it to speak – no stone, no tree, no wall, no animal – except for Al-Gharqad (the box-thorn), for it is one of their trees, and will not speak – except that it will say: “O Muslim slave of Allah, here is a Jews, come and kill him!“
In our discussion with respected Dr. Shaykh Shadee El Masry (and a recent clash he had with the Ahmadi religion) We were curious as to the way Dr. Shadee translated Qur’an 4:159
We never did get an answer to which Arabic word(s) he used to translate the text into ‘Hardly’. Do you, the reader, the truth seeker, see what is happening here? We Love Dr. Shaykh Shadee Elmasry and if you are in his community, Allah-willing, you are in good hands. However, sometimes people will be tenacious in defending the indefensible.
The Jews and Christians will be at each other’s throat until the day of judgement
“Every one of the People of the Book will definitely believe in him before his death.” (Qur’an 4:159) If you were to take the standard Sunni misunderstanding this would flatly contradict the following:
“And the Jews say, “The hand of Allah is chained.” Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His hands are extended; He spends however He wills. And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. And We have cast among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. ” (Qur’an 5:64)
“And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 5:14)
So the above verses do not give one the impression that Jesus (as) is going to come back and sing kumbaya with the Jews and the Christians.
We would not be surprised if some really desperate (clutching at straws) interpretation came that argued. Yes, Jesus (as) will bring the Jews and & Christians together, but they will still have animosity and hatred among them!!
Which begs the question: Why is he coming back?
Those of the Jews and Christians who see the truth and embrace insh’Allah are upon the path of safety. Those of the Jews and Christians who see the truth and reject it will be in hellfire.
“Indeed, that is My Path—perfectly straight. So follow it and do not follow other ways, for they will lead you away from His Way. This is what He has commanded you, so perhaps you will be conscious ˹of Allah˺” Qur’an 6:153)
“O mankind! Surely has come to you a convincing proof from your Lord, and We (have) sent down to you a clear light.” (Qur’an 4:174)
Our final point. We finish where we began.
“This is the dominant interpretation.” Well, Mufti, on what basis do you say this is the ‘dominant interpretation’ ? Can you tell us the total amount of tafsir literature you studied on this matter to conclude this? Also, if this is the ‘dominant interpretation’, it is by your own admission not necessarily the only one!
Truth vs. Popularity: The truth is not a matter of democratic opinion but of sound evidence from the Quran itself.
So dear respected readers which understanding of Qur’an4:159 do you accept as being more cogent?
The Sunni position.
The position of Mufti Zameer ur Rahman, Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah and the mufassirun — whom rely upon hearsay and disconnected chains coming often from anonymous sources.
A position that allows for whispering, speculation, doubt and uncertainty?
A position that ignores the advice of one of the four we are to learn the Qur’an from—none other than Ibn Masud (ra)?
A position that structures a belief that goes against the Sunnah? “Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them.”
The Ibadi position.
A position that takes the sincere council of one of the four we are to learn the Qur’an from—none other than Ibn Masud (ra)?
A position that does not go against the clear Sunnah. A position where we do not disbelieve them but we certainly do not build a belief based upon their reports.
A position that ask if it is reasonable to accept a 700 year gap in the chain of transmission as admissible evidence.
A position that is primarily reliant upon Tafsir al-Quran bi-l-Quran. (Interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an).
A position that allows the Qur’an to be interpreted by the use of other passages in the Qur’an, the use of grammar, context and theme?
A position that provides certainty and conviction?
“And indeed, it surely is a knowledge of the Hour. So do not be in doubt about it, and follow Me. This is the Path Straight.” (Qur’an 43:61)
﷽
This text also has to be one of the most used and abused texts of the whole of the Qur’an. It is used to assert the so-called “2nd coming” of Christ Jesus. The fact that this is the ‘go to’ verse when anyone is trying to assert that the Qur’an affirms the “2nd coming” of Christ Jesus shows you just how weak their argument is.
Such people are better off using the ahadith to argue their position.
Let us start off with a major problem and contradiction with this understanding.
Narrated Abu Hurairah:
That the Prophet (saw) said: “There are three, for which, when they appear, a soul will not benefit by its faith, if it did not believe before the Signs: Ad-Dajjal, the Beast, and the rising of the sun from its setting place” – or “from the west.”
The majority of Sunni Muslims believe that Jesus (as) is coming a second time. Those who believe that he is coming afterthe Dajjal. Remember, according to the above hadith and many like it faith does not benefit a person anymore!
“Do they wait for anything except that the angels should come to them or your Lord should come or that there come some of the signs of your Lord? The Day that some of the signs of your Lord will come no soul will benefit from its faith as long as it had not believed before or had earned through its faith some good. Say, “Wait. Indeed, we [also] are waiting.” (Qur’an 6:158)
It is very clear that when these signs happen, the faith and belief of those who came before will be rejected. Part of being a believer is to believe in the unseen.
“Who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and donate from what We have provided for them.” (Qur’an 2:3)
Those signs spoken of in Qur’an 6:158 will be so clear that after their appearance will neither avail the unbeliever to repent of his unbelief nor the disobedient to forsake his disobedience. So what would the point of Jesus (as) coming back and converting people to Islam (either by sword or by choice) when their belief counts for nothing any way?
Note how the text is being translated from the Qur’an corpus.
Muhammed Asad, Abdl Haleem & Mohamed Shafi translations have the “it” as the passage referring to the Qur’an.
Shabir Ahmed has ‘it’ as a reference to the Qur’an, but unlike Muhammed Asad and Abdul Haleem and Mohamed Shafi, he has the Qur’an talking about an “oncoming Revolution” rather than “the hour”.
Yusuf Ali’s Saudi version just goes all in!
“And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of).”
Prima Qur’an comments: So, according to that translation, not only is it Jesus, but he is a Sign as well!
Safi Kasas has Jesus in brackets but, unlike Yusuf Ali, he puts the [a sign] in brackets as well.
Abdul Hye goes all in with the second coming. “And he (Jesus) is a KNOWN SIGN.”
Dr. Munir Munshey gets carried away with: “In fact he, (and his fatherless birth) is a sign”
Then we have the Mustafa Khattab translation, really overselling it with their translation,
“And his ˹second˺ coming is truly a sign for the Hour. So have no doubt about it, and follow me. This is the Straight Path.”
Muhsin Khan & Muhammad al-Hilah (another Saudi translation) have it as: “And he (Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) shall be a known sign.”
Dr. Mohammed Tahir ul Qadri takes a que from his Salafi opponents and follows their lead with: “And surely (when) he, (Isa[Jesus], descends from heaven), he will be a sign…”
Ali Unai just goes on a tangent: “Surely he (Jesus) (brought into the world without a father, and granted such miracles as reviving the dead) is a means to knowledge of the Last Hour.”
Hamid S. Aziz is more neutral, non-committal in translation:
“And most surely it is (the above events or the Quran or he, Jesus) is a sign of the knowledge of coming of the Hour (of Resurrection and Judgment). Therefore have no doubt about it and follow Me: this is the Straight Way.”
Muhammad Taqi Usmani has it as: (‘Isa)
Syed Vickar Ahamed has it as: “And (Isa)
Farook Malik has it as: He (Jesus)
Maududi has it as: “Verily he [i.e, Jesus)
Rashad Khalifa has a bizarre translation: “He is to serve as a marker for knowing the end of the world, so you can no longer harbor any doubt about it.”
The Monotheist group — taking a que from their former mentor and master, Rashad Khalifa, has it as “He” and this becomes “a lesson for the Hour”
Are those who think the verse is a reference to Jesus justified?
Well, if you look at the surrounding context of the verse, the immediate context is about Jesus.
The verses before:
“Jesus was not but a servant upon whom We bestowed favor, and We made him an example for the Children of Israel.And if We willed, We could have made [instead] of you angels succeeding [one another] on the earth.” (Qur’an 43:59-60)
As well as the text after.
“And when Jesus brought clear proofs, he said, “I have come to you with wisdom and to make clear to you some of that over which you differ, so fear Allah and obey me.” (Qur’an 43:63)
So this could be a reason why some have considered 43:61 to be about Jesus.
However, as you will see when we see the over-arching theme of Qur’an 43 as well as whom the immediate audience is, that justification will quickly disappear.
What about Arabic grammar?
A closer look at the Arabic text. “wa-innahu”, this is the 3rd person masculine singular object pronoun. We have third-person pronouns in English as well. We have object pronouns—me, you, him, her, it.
Secondly, the word “biha” is a 3rd person feminine singular personal pronoun. So this further clarifies how “wa-innahu” should be understood.
“And indeed, it surely is a knowledge of the Hour. So do not be in doubt about it, and follow Me. This is the Path Straight.” (Qur’an 43:61)
So, to support their claim, they would have to go against Arabic grammar!
What is the overarching theme of Qur’an 43?
Do not just look at the verses immediately before or after. Read all the verses before and after.
Verses 43:2-5 are references concerning the Qur’an.
43:14 is a reference concerning the resurrection.
43:21 is a reference to the Qur’an.
43:31 is a reference to the Qur’an.
43:35 is a reference to the hereafter.
43:43-44 are both references to the Qur’an.
Yes, Allah spoke about Jesus (as) in the past tense. Just as Allah spoke about Moses (as) in the past tense. Allah spoke about Abraham (as) in the past tense.
Not only this but think about this.Who is the immediate audience of the Qur’an 43:61?
The immediate audience is the pagan Quresh. How is some “2nd coming” of Jesus supposed to be an argument for the oneness of Allah (swt), or the truth of the resurrection to that immediate audience?
What is more sensible?
Understanding A)
“And indeed, he (Jesus) surely is a knowledge of the Hour. So do not be in doubt about it(second coming of Jesus), and follow Me. This is the Path Straight.” (Qur’an 43:61)
How are you asking a group of pagan idolater Quresh to not be in doubt concerning it to believe in some second coming of Jesus (as) that they will never witness?
In what universe does this make sense?
Understanding B)
“And indeed, it surely is a knowledge of the Hour. So do not be in doubt about it, and follow Me. This is the Path Straight.” (Qur’an 43:61)
Or, are a group of pagan idolater Quresh being asked to believe in the Qur’an (it) with arguments about the hereafter and resurrection that they can ponder and believe in during their own lifetime?
Which of the two understandings of the verse above is more sensible?
Not only this, we still have to contend with the fact that, as per our other articles, Jesus(as) has died. That Muhammed (saw) is the last and final Prophet. The text of the Qur’an should be in harmony with one another. The supposition that the Qur’an supports the idea that Jesus (as)is not based upon solid evidence.
“Until, when HE reached THE SETTING OF THE SUN, HE found IT SET IN a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: “O Zul-qarnain! ,either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness” (Qur’an 18:86)
﷽
“Until, when HE came to the rising of the sun, HE found IT RISING on a people for whom We had provided no covering protection against the sun.” (Qur’an 18:90)
We believe these are the translations most favoured by atheists and skeptics. There are no parentheses around any of the text in English.
For example: he found it [as if] setting in a dark (Safi Kasas translation)
or
he found it [seemed to be] setting into a muddy spring (Abdel Haleem)
So we want to do away with any translation that has parenthesis. As if the authors are aware of the problem of the apparent reading of the English translation. However, we do want to bring another text into the discussion.we will use Arberry, a non-Muslim Christian translation of the Qur’an. We will use this translation because it bolsters the resolve of the skeptic and the atheist. Yet, we will see why insh’Allah
“And the sun — it runs to a fixed resting-place; that is the ordaining of the All-mighty, the All-knowing.” (Qur’an 36:38)
What we have noticed is that Christians and Jews do not use these types of arguments as they once did to attack the veracity of the Qur’an.
Why do Christians and Jews not use these types of arguments against the Qur’an anymore?
Why is that?
“On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel: Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon. So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!” (Joshua 10:12-14)
“And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters.” (Revelation 8:10)
Does everyone realize that the smallest star discovered so far is the size of Saturn? We hope people realize that you cannot actually hurl a star down to Earth the size of Saturn because that would do more than fall upon a third of the rivers!
What about this scientific blunder and simply fallacious statement?
“Swarms of living creatures will live wherever the river flows. There will be large numbers of fish, because this water flows there and makes the salt water fresh; so where the river flows everything will live.” (Ezekiel 47:9)
Let’s give some context, shall we?
“He said to me, “This water flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah, where it enters the Dead Sea. When it empties into the sea, the salty water there becomes fresh.” (Ezekiel 47:8)
Can it be said that the Dead Sea is freshwater? Does salt water become freshwater?
“He put another parable before them, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches (Matthew 13:31-32)
This is not to be condescending, and we do apologize if it comes across as such. However, if you were to talk to the average everyday speaker of the English language, and even those of you who speak it as a second or third language, would you know the following if someone stopped and asked you?
Give me an example of the predicate of the sentence. Give me an example of a lowercase nominative. Even some people would need to pause and think about what a helping verb is! Many people are simply not grounded in the grammar of their own language.
The Qur’an uses metaphors.Example:
“Then your hearts became hardened after that, being like stones or even harder. For indeed, there are stones from which rivers burst forth, and there are some of them that split open and water comes out, and there are some of them that fall down for fear of Allah. And Allah is not unaware of what you do.” (Qur’an 2:74)
We are surprised the atheists and the skeptics have not asked us Muslims for examples of a stone that you can split open and water would come forth. Or anywhere on the Earth where we can find water gushing forth from stones!
The Qur’an uses idioms. Example:
And who say, “Our Lord, bestow upon us from our spouses and offspring that will be the comfort of the eyes, (Literally: the coolness (when) the eyes settle down) and make us an imam (leader) of the pious.” (Qur’an 25:74)
Now the view common to people in the time in which the Qur’an was revealed would be:
That the world/earth is flat.
That the Sun revolves around the earth.
Here is a question you never see Muslims involved in daw’ah, apologetics or polemic ask these skeptics and atheists. Using the Arabic language of the 7th century, how would you construct the sentences of Qur’an in 18:86 and 18:90 that would be palatable to 21st century understanding?
For example, if the Qur’an had used a different way of describing events, we would have been described as flat earthers!
On the flat earth wiki the question is asked:
How do you explain day/night cycles and seasons?
“The sun moves in circles around the North Pole. When it is over your head, it’s day. When it’s not, it’s night. The light of the sun is confined to a limited area, and its light acts like a spotlight upon the Earth.”
Now let us look at the two passages in question again:
“Until, when HE reached THE SETTING OF THE SUN, HE found IT SET IN a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: “O Zul-qarnain! ,either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness” (Qur’an 18:86)
“Until, when HE came to the rising of the sun, HE found IT RISING on a people for whom We had provided no covering protection against the sun.” (Qur’an 18:90)
The English translated text “he found it” in Arabic wajadaha.
“And establish prayer and give zakah, and whatever good you put forward for yourselves – you will find it with Allah. Indeed, Allah of what you do, is Seeing.” (Qur’an 2:11)
‘Will find it’ in Arabic is tajiduhu
No one among Muslims believes that a person is going to find their prayers, or purification of wealth, and good actions in a pile somewhere with Allah (swt). It is perceived, as the verse itself says, that Allah (swt) is acquainted with what we do. Our intention behind every action, everything. Now you have to wonder what Zul-qarnain actually found, given his own empirical data about the sun.
The sun is hotter than other days. Even looking at this sentence we used in English, it is problematic. It is not that the sun may necessarily be hotter than other days, it is that the proximity of the sun is closer to the earth during certain times of the year.
The sun appears brighter on some days more than on others.
The sun obviously does not literally set in a murky spring because its light is not doused or put out. If the Qur’an was describing something literal, you would think that the sun being dipped in a murky spring would produce some type of noteworthy phenomena.
Let us look at some other verses in this conversation, Qur’an 21:33.
We will use three orientalist/Christian translations; not necessarily Islam-friendly.
“It is He who created the night and the day, the sun and the moon, each swimming in a sky.” Arthur John Arberry
“It is He who hath created the night, and the day, and the sun, and the moon; all the celestial bodies move swiftly, each in its respective orb.” -George Sale(all celestial bodies) is not in the Arabic text.
“And He it is who hath created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each moving swiftly in its sphere.” -John Medows Rodwell
Now those are the type of text that flat earthers would just love to use. Do note that one thing that is clear about the three above translations taken together is that the moon and the sun “do something” in their own respective sphere/lane.
Now why I say “do something” is that the Arabic that is used is the same word for ships. So a ship can float and seem stationary and yet a ship can be moving at the same time. A force can move a ship.
Let’s look at another verse: Qur’an 36:40
“It behoves not the sun to overtake the moon, neither does the night outstrip the day, each swimming in a sky.” Arthur John Arberry
“It is not expedient that the sun should overtake the moon in her course; neither doth the night outstrip the day: But each of these luminaries moveth in a peculiar orbit.” George Sale
“To the Sun it is not given to overtake the Moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day; but each in its own sphere doth journey on.” John Medows Rodwell.
The empirical data that people see and observe is that the sun does indeed overtake the moon. The empirical data that people see and observe is that the night does outstrip the day. Yet, Allah (swt) described natural phenomena couched in a language that contradicts the idea that the earth is flat (sunset/sunrise).
All the text taken in their literal apparent sense states that:
The sun sets, the sun rises. This does not happen on a flat earth.
The Sun and the Moon float/move in their own respective sphere, orb. Something that apparent empirical data does not suggest.(different spheres of influence).
The sun does not overtake the moon (as if they were in the same lane-line), something that the apparent, empirical data suggest. (your turn/my turn).
Now one more verse that clearly shows that the sun setting in a murky spring is in accord with the empirical observable data that human beings see and witness. This verse, subhan’Allah, has something very interesting to say.
“And the sun — it runs to a fixed resting-place; that is the ordaining of the All-mighty, the All-knowing.” (Qur’an 36:4) Arberry translation.
Interestingly, the words used in Qur’an 18:86 are taghrubu (setting) and maghriba (The setting of the sun). They are both used to denote the west. Out of our five daily prayers, the fourth prayer is called the ‘maghrib’ prayer. North Africa is known as the ‘Maghreb’—a westernmost place or place where the sun sets.
Whereas in Qur’an 36:4 this verse says nothing about setting in a murky spring. The Arabic here is ‘limus’taqarrin’. The verse is describing the ultimate end of the sun. The choice of ‘limus’taqarrin’ is mind-blowing. After reflecting on this, is it not time to stop typing and do sujudd and thank Allah (swt) that we are Muslim! Al hamdulillah!
To be or become cool, remain quiet, be steadfast, be firm, refresh, be stable, be firm, receive satisfy, affirm, agree, settle, last. qarar – stability, a fixed or secure place, depository, place ahead. qurratun – coolness, delight. aqarra (vb. 4) – to confirm, cause to rest or remain. istaqarra (vb. 10) – to remain firm. mustaqirrun – that which remains firmly fixed or confirmed, in hiding, is lasting, which certainly comes to pass, which is settled in its being/goal/purpose. mustaqar – firmly fixed/established, sojourn, abode. qurratun – coolness, refreshment, source of joy and comfort. qawarir (pl. of qaruratun) – glasses, crystals.
“To be or become cool, remain quiet, be steadfast, be firm, refresh, be stable, be firm, receive satisfy, affirm, agree, settle, last. qawarir-glasses, crystals
“Which is settled in its being/goal/purpose.” This is also interesting because the Arabic that is used indicates a stage that has been fulfilled but not that it does not have any more purpose of use. One purpose has been served and a new purpose awaits.
“Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’an, or are there locks upon [their] hearts? (Qur’an 47:24)
“My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)
﷽
We have absolutely been fascinated by those few individuals who have found there to be controversy surrounding the identity of Dhul-al-Qarnayn. The reason why we are fascinated is that historians and Orientalists are not actually interacting with the Qur’an per se. They are interacting with commentary about the Qur’an.
Historian: We found no evidence that X existed.
Believer: They have yet to find evidence that X existed.
Epistemology matters!
The chart above shows the difference between the different axioms of the believers and the doubters. Agnostics and atheists have a different epistemology than believers.
How The Above Chart Explains the Concept:
The Source (A): Everything begins with the “Original Source” (A), which is the divine, perfect narrative from God.
The Two Paths:
The human traditions (B) are a changed and corrupted version of the original story, having passed through centuries of human transmission (resulting in legends, folklore, and altered scriptures).
The Qur’an (C) comes directly and perfectly from the same original source (A), acting as a “Final Revelation” that restores the original message.
The Optical Illusion (The Core of Our Point):
The Skeptical View (dashed line) looks at the relationship between B and C and mistakenly concludes that C must have copied from B because B appears earlier in history.
The Islamic View (solid arrows) correctly identifies that both B and C draw from a common, older source (A). Therefore, when B contains elements that align with C, it doesn’t mean C copied B—it means B still contains remnants of the original truth (A) that the Qur’an (C) confirms and corrects.
The Verbatum Point: The arrow from C to B, labeled “Corrects & Purifies,” visually explains why you will never find verbatim copying. The Qur’an doesn’t replicate the corrupted narratives (B); it speaks with authority from the original source (A) to rectify them.
For the skeptics and doubters, their findings reinforce their epistemology and their axioms. For the Muslims, the findings of the skeptics and doubters provide corroborating evidence of our own epistemology and axioms.
As a Muslim, we know that a tafsir is not divine revelation.Tafsir is scholarly musings about the text.
1st, it should be noted that Dhul Al-Qarnayn, like Khidr, are simply epitaphs, like Al-Amin. These are not real names they are descriptors.
2nd, it should be noted that not much attention is given to the individuals (Khidr & Dhul Al-Qarnayn) beyond their epitaphs. The attention is given to the events that unfold or surround them.
3rd, the Qur’an only mentions Dhul Al-Qarnayn thrice.
So let us get into the narrative of Dhul Al-Qarnayn in the Qur’an.
“And they will ask you about Dhul-Al Qarnayn. Say: I will recount to you a remembrance of him.” (Qur’an 18:83)
“We established him on earth, and We gave him from everything a way.” (Qur’an 18:84)
“And he followed a way.” (Qur’an 18:85)
“Till, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhul-Al Qarnayn! Either punish or show them kindness.” (Qur’an 18:86)
“He responded, “Whoever does wrong will be punished by us, then will be returned to their Lord, Who will punish them with a horrible torment.” (Qur’an 18:87)
“But as for the one who believes and does righteousness, he will have the best of rewards. We shall require him to do only easy things.” (Qur’an 18:88)
“Then he followed a path.” (Qur’an 18:89)
“Until he came to the rising of the sun. He found it rising on a people for whom We had provided no shade.” (Qur’an 18:90)
“And so it was, Our knowledge encompassed all that happened to him.” (Qur’an 18:91)
“Then he followed a path.” (Qur’an 18:92)
“Until he reached between a barrier, where he found a people who could hardly understand a word he was saying.” (Qur’an 18:93)
“They said, “O Dhul Al-Qarnayn, Gog and Magog are corrupting this land. Can we pay you to erect a barrier between us and them?” (Qur’an 18:94)
“He responded, “What my Lord has provided for me is far better. But assist me with resources, and I will build a barrier between you and them.” (Qur’an 18:95)
“Bring me blocks of iron!” Then, when he had filled up ˹the gap˺ between the barriers he ordered, “Blow!” When the iron became red hot, he said, “Bring me molten copper to pour over it.” (Qur’an 18:96)
“And so the enemies could neither scale nor tunnel through it.” (Qur’an 18:97)
“He said: This is a mercy from my Lord; but when the promise of my Lord comes to pass, He will lay it low, for the promise of my Lord is true.” (Qur’an 18:98)
“On that Day, We will let them surge ˹like waves˺ over one another. Later, the Trumpet will be blown, and We will gather all ˹people˺ together.” (Qur’an 18:99)
The first thing that we found fascinating about this set of texts is the use of twos. Things are in contradistinction to one another. Like two different items, two different scenarios, two things in contrast.
First, being the main focus of the individual in the narrative, is Dhul Al-Qarnayn — the two-horned one, one of two different epochs. The one with two braids. The one with two people.
ثُمَّ أَتْبَعَ سَبَبًا ثُمَّ أَتْبَعَ سَبَبًا
That exact phrase appears twice.
Setting-place of the sun/he came to the rising of the sun (two different scenarios in relation to the sun)
Either punish or show them kindness (two different ways to deal with a particular people).
A people for whom We had provided no shade contrasted with a people who had no protection against tribes.
The tribes in question are two gog/magog. Two tribes.
He met two different types of people; people who could hardly understand a word, contrasted with people he could communicate with readily.
A barrier between you and them-a barrier is a separation between at least two different things.
The barrier they were not able to do two things: neither scale nor tunnel through it.
The barrier itself is made from two different metals: iron and copper.
If we are looking for clues of a historical vestige (remembrance), we would want to note the following:
A)What is the meaning of Dhul Al-Qarnayn in the Arabic language?
B) They will ask you. Who is the ‘they’?
C)How did they respond to the information?
D) Tribes are identified as Gog and Magog.
E) Blocks of iron and molten copper are used to seal an apparent gap/breach in a barrier.
Ea) It is assumed that there is a garrison that defends the area. The purpose of the wall is to prevent being overrun. *note*
Note: This is an assumption on our behalf.
Eb) It is assumed that whoever the Gog and Magog are, that they are either
a) raiders b) expansionists
If we assume they are raiders, this means they have had a foray into these people’s territories before. Though they never established dominion over them.
If we assume that they are expansionists, then the people that Dhul Al-Qarnayn encounter are those who presume expansion is heading in their direction and thus, they want to make preparations.
As regards Qur’an 18:98 we do not see that as connected to Qur’an 18:99 as in events that happen at the same time. For more on this please see:
There is nothing that an individual using the historical critical method or an orientalist has brought that even remotely challenges the narrative of the Qur’an. Nihil ad rem. People having doubts because a tafsir was challenged. That is an absolute nothingburger.
Recall:
“And they will ask you about Dhul-Al Qarnayn. Say: I will recount to you a remembrance of him.” (Qur’an 18:83)
There is nothing in that verse that indicates that the answers to the questions that they posed were matters that concern anyone outside those that asked the questions.
“As for the ship, it belonged to some poor people, working at sea. So I intended to damage it, for there was a king ahead of them who seizes every ship by force.” “And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would pressure them into defiance and disbelief. So we hoped that their Lord would give them another, more virtuous and caring in his place.” (Qur’an 18:79-81)
﷽
The Qur’an is sublime.
“Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)
In the Qur’an, in chapter 18, verses 65 to 82, we have information related to us by a figure that Islamic scholars have named ‘Khidr’.
Finally, when Prophet Moses (as) is no longer able to keep patient with this figure and the things that this figure does prompt Moses (as) on every occasion to question why he does the things that he does, he finally gets resolution.
“As for the ship, it belonged to some poor people, working at sea. So I intended to damage it, for there was a king ahead of them who seizes every ship by force.” “And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would pressure them into defiance and disbelief. So we hoped that their Lord would give them another, more virtuous and caring in his place.” “And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and there was beneath it a treasure for them, and their father had been righteous. So your Lord intended that they reach maturity and extract their treasure, as a mercy from your Lord. And I did it not of my own accord. That is the interpretation of that about which you could not have patience.” (Qur’an 18:79-81)
None of the translations of the meaning can give justice to the Arabic Qur’an.
As regards the action of damaging the ship. The individual ascribes that action to himself.
So I intended to damage it. I intended: fa-aradttu 1st person singular verb.
“and we feared that he would pressure them into defiance and disbelief. So we hoped that their Lord would give them another, more virtuous and caring in his place.”
We feared:fakhashina 1st person plural perfect verb. The ‘we feared’ is better translated or understood as ‘we disliked’. Whatever displeases Allah (swt) displeases his loyal and faithful servants.
We hoped: fa-aradna 1st person plural perfect verb. The ‘we hoped’ is better translated as we intended.
In here fakhashina ‘we disliked’ he returns it to himself and to Allah (swt). Why?
Killing the child, he returns back to himself.
“So they proceeded until they came across a boy, and the man killed him. Moses protested, “Have you killed an innocent soul who killed no one?” You have certainly done a horrible thing.” (Qur’an 18:74)
“So we hoped that their Lord would give them another, more virtuous and caring in his place.”
Allah is replacing the child with another.
So the killing is from the companion of Moses (as) and the replacement is from Allah (swt). You can use the ‘We’ as Allah (swt) is the creator of all things and human beings acquire the actions.
“So your Lord intended that they reach maturity and extract their treasure, as a mercy from your Lord.”
The Lord intended: fa-arada rabbuka 3rd person masculine singular perfect verb
fa-aradttu (I intended) an a’ibaha (cause a defect) -I wanted to. fa-aradna- (we intended) fa-arada rabbuka (so intended Your Lord)
Very often the various translations rob the reader of the depth of the Arabic language.
Another example is Qur’an 3:7
“And none know its interpretation save God and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in it; all is from our Lord.”
Those who may lack depth of Arabic grammar and syntax would argue that the verse should be read as: “But none knows its interpretation except Allah”. And those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: “We believe in this, it is all from our Lord.”
Whereas the better reading is:
“But none knows its interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in this it is all from our Lord.”
However, due to the lack of depth of the Arabic grammar and syntax, they would object by looking at English translations of the meanings and say:
That Allah (swt) would not say: “We believe in this it is all from our Lord.”
But this is not the proper understanding at all. The part of the verse: “We believe in this it is all from our Lord.” Is a reference to : “Those who are firmly rooted in knowledge.” and not to Allah (swt).
Issues that arise from the verses by those not grounded in theology.
They argue that it looks as if Allah (swt) is certain of the righteousness of the substitute son that does not exist yet; all the while, the unbelieving son, Allah (swt) was simply using the principle of probability.
But this type of reasoning is turned on its head. If Allah (swt) knew, the righteousness of the substitute son, which does not exist yet, he certainly knew of the actions of the unbelieving son.
Allah (swt) allowing for the son to be killed as well as the announcement of another son are all based upon certain knowledge that Allah (swt) has.
“Nasty women are for nasty men, and nasty men are for nasty women. And virtuous women are for virtuous men, and virtuous men are for virtuous women. The virtuous areinnocent of what the wicked say. They will have forgiveness and an honourable provision.” (Qur’an 24:26)
﷽
This article is written so that the masses can understand the correct understanding of the verse and not the faulty understanding that is widespread among the Ummah.
Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (h) explains the correct understanding of this verse:
This is from the ill understanding of some ayats, actually.
For example: {Nasty ones are for nasty people} (Qur’an 24:26) {good ones are for good peole} (Qur’an 24:26)
What do most people understand from this ayat? What does {good ones are for good people} mean?
Audience: “Means that the pious women is for the pious man.”
Shaykh Miqbali: “He understands that the pious woman is for the pious man, and this is not true, ever.”
{good ones are for good people,} and {Nasty ones are for nasty people,}
{good ones are for good people} and {Nasty ones are for nasty people}
He means the good words and sayings are for the good people, and the nasty words and sayings are for the nasty people.
So the nasty refers to the words and the good refers to the words, not that good women are for good men. Or else, Asia, a woman from the women of Jannah, is the woman of the Pharaoh! The Pharaoh is nasty, and she’s from the people of Jannah. So this can’t be!
And the women of Lut and Nuh are in the fire while they (Lut & Nuh) are prophets. So it’s not meant that women are wives…. No. Words are meant.
This ayat came in surah Al Nur, after mentioning the story of Ifk and the words
that were said to Lady Aisha (ra) and the accusations and false things.
So after that came the saying of Allah:{Nasty ones are for nasty people, and nasty people are for nasty ones, and the good ones are for the good people, and the good people are for the good ones.}
{Those are acquitted of what they…} ??? {…. SAY} (Qur’an 24:26)
Qutb Al A’ima (the centre of Imams) (ra) also mentioned this in his Tafseer Himyan Al Zad. He also said that it’s the view of the majority. And he stated that Ibn Abbas (ra) also went with this interpretation. He’s one of the biggest Imams of the madhab. And he has written more than 300 books!
If the Qutb is not enough, then there’s also the statement of Al Hawari in his tafseer, and it’s one of the earliest Ibadi tafseer books, 3rd hijri century. He also said the same.
For other examples of verses that have been misinterpreted or misunderstood, you may wish to see the following articles:
“It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the world view that is based on the truth to manifest it over all other world views, although the mushrik make dislike it.” (Qur’an 9:33)
﷽
The subject of the Mahdi concerns Islamic Eschatology or what is known as end-time events.
First and foremost, it is important to understand that when one speaks of Mahdi, different schools and expressions of Islam have different ideas in mind.
Twelver Shi’a
In Twelver Shi’a theology, the Mahdi is the twelfth and final Imam, Muhammed ibn al-Hasan al-Mahdi, believed to be the direct descendant of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed(saw) through his daughter Fatima (ra). He is in occultation: He is hidden from public view by Allah’s will. He will re appear in some future eschatological event to restore justice.
Isma’ili Shi’a & The Qarmatians & Muhammed bin Isma’il
The person of Muhammed bin Isma’il caused a fracture early on, causing one stream that historians label the ‘Qarmatians’ and the other founding the Fatimid Caliphate.
The Qarmatian View.
Muhammed ibn Isma’il was not just the 7th Imam; he was the Qā’im (the Resurrector) and the Mahdi.
The Ismaili (Later Fatimid) View.
Muhammed ibn Isma’il was the 7th Imam.
He went into hiding (satr) due to Abbasid persecution.
The Imamate continued in his descendants.
They recognized a hidden line of Imams following him, which eventually culminated in Abdullah al-Mahdi Billah, who publicly declared himself Imam in 899 CE and founded the Fatimid Caliphate in 909 CE.
For this group, the Imam was always present on earth, whether concealed or manifest.
The Zaydi Shi’a
For Zaydis, the term “Mahdi” (the Guided One) is not exclusively reserved for a single, predestined, end-of-times figure. Instead, it is a title that can be applied to any rightly guided Imam from the Ahl al-Bayt who rises to establish justice.
There are times when they have referenced their Imams as such. For example: Al-Mahdi Li-Din Allah
While not a core dogma, Zaydi literature does contain some hadith about a future messianic figure from the Ahl al-Bayt, often referred to as “al-Qa’im” (The One Who Will Arise) or “al-Mahdi.”
Sunni View.
The dominant view and position among Sunni Muslims is that Mahdi is a figure believed to be the direct descendant of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed(saw) through his daughter Fatima (ra). He will appear in some future eschatological event to restore justice.
Again, this is the view of the vast majority of Sunni Muslims. As the articles in this entry will clearly demonstrate, there are many in the Sunni tradition that do not share this belief.
Ibadi View. The idea of a Mahdi is not something found in our sources. We have no belief in any coming Mahdi. If the coming of this figure is true, we hope Allah opens our eyes to it. However, it is not a theological principle with us nor something we believe in.
It should be noted to the reader and researcher. Often, the various schools of Islam will have what is known as Shaadh (شاذ) — The Irregular/Anomalous Opinion. These are views that are anomalous or isolated. The Ibadi school has such and other schools do as well. Yet, on the issue of the Mahdi, we have not even come across a shaadh.
We establish the following facts.
The Qur’an has no mention of any Imam Mahdi.
The Ibadi hadith collection has no mention of Imam Mahdi.
There is no hadith about Mahdi in the Al-Jami’i Al-Salih, otherwise known as the Musnad Al-Imam Al Rabii.
The silence of Bukhari & Muslim.
The two great Imams of Hadith, Bukhari and Muslim, neither of them mentions Hadith concerning Imam Mahdi. What’s interesting about this is that both of them are aware of narrations on the subject that meet their criteria, yet they did not include them.
The silence of the Muwatta of Malik ibn Anas.
There is no hadith about Mahdi in the Muwatta of Malik ibn Anas.
What will Ahl Sunnah In the next 56 years and no Mahdi? Witness the genius of Ibn al-Hajr al-Asqalani as he tries to make sense of the data.
The man whho the ‘Abdulla bin Zaid Al Mahmoud Islamic Cultural Center’ in Qatar is named after and former Qāḍī al-Quḍāt, and Athari -Salafi , tells us why there is no coming Mahdi.
Ali Erbaş Turkish Islamic scholar and president of directorate of religious affairs -diyanet in Turkey, believes Mahdi will not come and that Jesus (as) is dead. The Presidency of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) is Turkey’s highest official Islamic authority.
The great ibn Khaldūn al-Ḥaḍramī, Ashʿarī in theology, and Mālikī in jurisprudence. Writes in the Muqaddimah (Book 1, Chapter 3, section on the caliphate) about the weakness of the chains concerning narrations of Mahdi.
Shaykh Dr. Muhammed Bin Yahya Ninowy, a descendant of the Blesed Prophet Muhammed (saw) through the line of Imam al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, expreses his doubts about the Mahdi.
Prima Quran 