“Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, “Be,” and it is.” (Qur’an 2:117)
“And when your Lord took from the children of Adam – from their loins – their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying], ‘Am I not your Lord?’ They said, ‘Yes, we have testified.’ [This] – lest you should say on the day of Resurrection, ‘Indeed, we were of this unaware.'” (Qur’an 7:172)
﷽
Jesus (as) pre-exists in Islam the same way that you, the dear readers, pre-exist in Islam. Allah has knowledge of all things; However, eternal knowledge of a thing does not include the thing being eternal itself.
Jesus (as) is singled out as a word from Him due to the nature of his birth.
“Truly, the likeness of Jesus, in God’s sight, is as Adam’s likeness; He created him of dust, then said He unto him, ‘Be,’ and he was.” (Qur’an 3:59)
In other words, Jesus is a created word of Allah. “Be and it is” is an idiom for the expediency by which Allah brings something from non being into being.
Is Jesus the created word of Allah or the uncreated word of Allah?
“When the angels said, “O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word (bi-kalimatin) from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary – distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah]. (Qur’an 3:45)
Jesus (as) is a word from Him.
“And [the example of] Mary, the daughter of ‘Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into through Our angel, and she believed in the words (bi-kalimati) of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient.” (Qur’an 66:12)
Mary (as) is believing in the Lord and his words. Meaning they are not identical.
“O People of the Scripture do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and a word (kalimatuhu) from Him which He directed to Mary and a soul from Him. So, believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.” (Qur’an 4:171)
Jesus (as) is a word from Him.
“And if anyone of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the (kalam al-lahi) Words of Allah.” (Quran 9:6)
“Those who remained behind will say when you set out toward the war booty to take it, “Let us follow you.” They wish to change the (kalama l-lahi) Words of Allah.” (Quran 48:15)
All these words come from the same Arabic trilateral root.
ك ل م (kaf) (lam) (mim) Jesus is the created word of Allah (swt) just as The Qur’an is the created word of Allah (swt). If someone were to believe that Jesus (as) is the uncreated word of Allah (swt), then that would be Christianity. If someone were to believe that Jesus (as) is the created word of Allah (swt), that would be Islam and the path of safety.
One of our teachers has known people who left Islam for Christianity.
We have never heard of a Muslim who believes Allah (swt) alone is the Creator and everything else (including The Qur’an as being created) become a Christian.
We do not doubt, respected reader, that after your acquaintance with the arguments and debates presented in this discussion on the issue of the Creation of The Qur’an, you will have realized that the correctness and safety lie in the belief that it is, like all other existing things, something other than Allah. It came into existence after it had not been. Whatever is like that, it is without doubt created. You will have realized also that this belief in its being eternal opens the door for those who believe in the possibility of multiplicity of the eternal to the extent that it leads to belief in the world’s being eternal.
Sunni Muslims often assume that everyone operates with the same definition and understanding of an attribute, even though these definitions were not explicitly given by the Blessed Prophet (saw) nor laid out in The Qur’an.
Sunni concept & Ibadi concept.
Sunni/Salafi: Attributes ascribed to His Self (Sifat Dhatiyyah).
Attributes ascribed to His Actions (Sifat Fi’liyyah).
Attributes ascribed to both His Self and His Actions. (Sifat Dhatiyyah Fi’liyyah).
Ibadi: Attributes are of two types: essential (dhatiyyah) and active (fi’liyya).
Sunni: Speech is an eternal attribute. Ibadi: The power to produce is eternal (essential); the spoken revelation is created (active).
Sunni: The Qur’an is the attribute of speech. Ibadi: The Qur’an is the product of the attribute of speech, not the attribute itself.
Sunni: “Attribute of Speech” = eternal, uncreated.” Ibadi: “Attribute of Speech” = relates to Allah’s eternal power. Just like Allah’s ability to create = relates to Allah’s eternal power. However, Allah’s creation is temporal.
So when Sunnis say: “Either you believe one of Allah’s attributes is created and have likened him to creation, or you deny it being an attribute and reject Allah’s ability to truly speak.
We reply:
“We do not believe the attribute (power to speak) is created. We believe the product of that attribute (The Qur’an) is created. You have conflated the two. Your dilemma does not apply.
This is why we are not bothered when The Qur’an is referenced as the word of Muhammed (saw) or Gabriel (as) depending on the interpretation.”That this is verily the word of an honoured messenger.” (Qur’an 69:40)
“Verily this is the word of a most honourable Messenger.” (Qur’an 81:19)
Nor do we have problems with Jesus (as) being the Created word of Allah, as The Qur’an is the Created word of Allah.:
“The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and a word (kalimatuhu) from Him which He directed to Mary and a soul from Him”. (Qur’an 4:171)
If Jesus is called a “word” and is clearly created, then being designated as a “word of Allah” does not by itself imply eternality or uncreatedness. Therefore, the Qur’an can also be understood as a created word proceeding from Allah’s eternal power to speak.
Jesus is called ‘a word’ but no Muslim says Jesus is an attribute of Allah. Likewise, the Qur’an as a recited, sequential, Arabic text is a creation. What is uncreated is Allah’s eternal ability to speak, not any particular spoken thing.
Has that attribute of Allah entered into Creation?
Since the recited, audible, sequential Qur’an does exist in creation, it cannot be the eternal attribute itself. Therefore, what entered creation is created. The eternal attribute is simply Allah’s power to speak — which never “enters” anywhere, as it is not a thing but a capacity.
Honoured messenger.
By contrast, when Jesus is called “a word from Him” (kalimatun minhu) in Qur’an 3:45 or “His word which He cast unto Mary” in Qur’an 4:171. .The Qur’an too is a word from Him, either cast into Gabriel or Muhammed. Look at the verse of the Qur’an: “That this is verily the word of an honoured messenger” (Qur’an 69:40); see also Qur’an 81:19.
Thus, the disagreement is not really over whether 69:40 calls the Qur’an the word of a messenger. Both sides acknowledge the verse. The disagreement is over what follows from that fact.
The Sunni tradition says the verse concerns transmission, not ontology; the Ibadi argument says that once speech is spoken, revealed, and directed to creation, it is already an act and therefore created.
For example:
“And you did not kill them, but it was Allah who killed them. And you did not throw when you threw, but it was Allah who threw.” (Qur’an 8:17)
Key implications of this verse:
The apparent human action is real — Muhammad (saw) did physically throw.
But the creative origin is Allah’s — Allah created the act of throwing.
The act itself is temporal and created — no one claims “the throw” is eternal.
Attribution to the human does not negate creation — saying “Muhammad threw” is true in one sense, but ontologically the act is Allah’s creation.
“That this is verily the word of an honoured messenger.” (Qur’an 69:40)
Key implications of this verse:
The apparent human/angelic speech is real — The messenger (understood by classical exegetes as Muhammed (saw) in Qur’an 69:40, and as Jibril (as) in Qur’an 81:19) did physically utter or convey these words.
But the creative origin is Allah’s — Allah created the act of speech and the words themselves, just as He created the act of throwing in Qur’an 8:17.
The act itself is temporal and created — No one claims “the utterance” or “the conveyed speech” is eternal. The messenger spoke it in time; it was heard, recited, and transmitted in time.
Attribution to the messenger does not negate creation — Saying “this is the word of a messenger” is true in one sense (the messenger conveyed it), but ontologically the speech is Allah’s creation, just as the throw in Qur’an 8:17 is Allah’s creation despite being attributed to Muhammad.
“He has created you (all) from a single soul; then made its mate from it. He has sent down(wa-anzala)eight types of livestock for you. He creates you in your mothers´ wombs, one creation following upon another creation in three [stages of] darkness. Such is Allah, your Lord. Control belongs to Him; there is no god except for Him. Yet you disregard [Him]!” (Qur’an 39:6)
“He has (nazzala) sent down upon you, [O Muhammed], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.” (Qur’an 3:3)
﷽
Shaykh Khalid Al Abdali (h) explains.
The Ibadi say that the Qur’an is created. What is your opinion on this, and what does it mean? What is the issue here? I hear people asking me: the Ibadi say that Allah brought the Qur’an into existence. So what is your opinion? It’s as if they are saying there are two groups: one group says that Allah Almighty brought the Qur’an into existence, and another group says that Allah did not bring the Qur’an into existence. So what is your view?
My view is that He brought it into existence, because creation — some people think creation means [something like] hair and blood. He created death. You know that death is a created thing among the created beings. Death, death, death, death is created. Alright.
Then he says: Is the Qur’an created or uncreated? What kind of question is this? This is a wrong question. Say to me: Did Allah send down the Qur’an or did He not send it down? I say to you: He sent it down, because we all believe that He sent it down, and it is His speech and His revelation, clearly.
Alright, let us focus on this issue: The Qur’an is the speech of Allah, without doubt. No one has a problem with that. I say that the Qur’an is the speech of Allah; Allah sent it down. Correct or not?
Do you have camels, cattle, sheep, goats in your country? Alright, did Allah send them down or create them? A little child, this young one, this offspring — did Allah create them or send them down? Look, if someone asks like this, what would you say? He would say, “He created them.” May Allah bless you. Since you answered, you first — Allah willing, you will read the verse for us. Give us the mushaf (Quran). He knows it by heart.
“I seek refuge with Allah from Satan the accursed. He created you from one soul, then made from it its mate, and sent down for you of the cattle eight pairs.” — Once with “sent down” and once with “created”? “Of the cattle eight pairs” — “sent down”? Or “created”? “Sent down, sent down, sent down” — or “created”? Let’s see. “Sent down” — “sent down” — “sent down.” He focuses on the question: “sent down” or “created”? “Of the cattle” — so He sent them down. When did you see this verse? First time you see it today? First time you focus on it, yes. Because I told you, many Muslims hear but do not read. Not him, but this is an example so you understand.
“Send down” — therefore, Ibn Kathir said regarding this verse: “Send down” means “created.” Something — the interpretation of Ibn Kathir here. Whoever wants to read: “And He sent down for you of the cattle eight pairs” — meaning He created for them from the cattle eight pairs. Enough, enough. “Send down” means “created.” Do you understand? Yes. Therefore, he is amazed at people who do not want to understand this issue. They may become fanatical — “not allowed,” “disbelief,” “not allowed,” “no way.” You say the truth, but you do not know. Emotion has taken you because so-and-so was imprisoned and beaten, then released. While so-and-so who said the opposite was imprisoned, beaten, slaughtered, and killed, yet you did not grieve for him, even though he was the one with the truth — you grieved for this one. Do you understand? Therefore, focus well.
The Qur’an — Allah Almighty brought it into existence. It did not exist, so He brought it into existence. Is it possible for Allah Almighty to have His life go away? Can a attribute of Him go away?
Some people say: The speech of Allah is an attribute of Him. Who told you — from your destruction? Listen. One day I ask: Do you know that one whose attribute is from his destruction? His speech — is it his speech or not his speech? He says: “It is an attribute of Him, from His attributes.” From his destruction, from His attributes. Why did he say? Because of His speech. And who told you that speech can be an attribute? Do you understand? Therefore, I give you advice: Most Muslims on earth say that the Qur’an is created, except a small group that terrorizes Muslims. They say “no,” and they clothe falsehood for people. Why? Because the Ash’aris — according to them — either the internal speech or the Qur’an. The internal speech is uncreated, but this Qur’an is created. They write this in their books. So this small group that dominates the world says to people regarding these Ash’aris: Are there two Qur’ans? Why? Because they say: “Internal speech” and “Qur’an” — internal speech is uncreated, and the Qur’an is created. Do you understand it? Cut.
Look, the issue of the creation of the Qur’an is not, meaning, of great benefit. Unfortunately, Muslims made it bigger than its actual worth. Had they remained silent and all said: “The Qur’an is the speech of Allah, Allah sent it down, His revelation” — enough, Almighty Allah speaks the truth — enough. But do not come and say to people: “Say ‘uncreated,’ and it is not allowed to say ‘created.’ No, no, I do not agree with you.” Let us agree together: “The Qur’an is the speech of Allah, His revelation, and His sending down. He sent it down, revealed it, and it is Allah’s speech.” Agreed? No problem. We stop here, and this belief accommodates all Muslims. Beware of saying to the one who speaks the truth that you are upon falsehood. Do you understand? Yes.
What is the reason? It is said: It was a Jew or a Christian — Abu Shakir al-Daysani — it is said it was one of them who said that Jesus is the word of Allah. So they said: If it (the word) is uncreated, then Jesus is uncreated. Thus, they confused the Islamic world.
Prima Qur’an comments: Online reference for Ibn Kahtir is the following:
((And He has sent down for you of cattle eight pairs.) means, He has created for you from among the cattles, eight pairs. These are the ones that are mentioned in Surat Al-An`am, eight kinds — a pair of sheep, a pair of goats, a pair of camels and a pair of oxen.) -Tafsir Ibn Kathir.
For those who would like to read more on this subject you may enjoy the following:
“Say, He Allah is Absolute. That which is indepenent of all but which all things are dependent upon. He does not bring forth like kind nor was he from like kind. And there is no equivalent to His being Absolute.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)
﷽
We will demonstrate in this article (Allah-willing) that the New Testament never presents Jesus as the only Son of God. Where the New Testament cross references the Old Testament we will bring forth those texts.
This textual reality cuts straight to the heart of how the Trinity was formulated in the early Church. If the New Testament leaves room for other “sons of God” (whether angels, kings, or cosmic beings) and never uses mathematically exclusive language to isolate Jesus as the solitary son, it creates a massive structural and linguistic problem for Trinitarian theology.
It Explodes the “Eternal Generation” Framework
To protect the Trinity, early Church theologians (like those at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD) had to invent a philosophical concept called “Eternal Generation.”
They argued that Jesus is a Son not because he was created, but because he eternally “flows” from the Father, sharing the exact same divine substance (homoousios). To make this work, Jesus had to be the only one.
The Trinitarian Dilemma: If the text allows for other natural or heavenly beings to hold the status of “a son” without distinct legal qualifiers like adoption, then “Son of God” ceases to be a title of exclusive divine essence.
If an angel or a human king in the Old Testament is called a “Son of God” using the same basic Hebrew or Greek categories, then the title “Son” no longer automatically proves that Jesus is God. It lowers the title from an ontological statement (what Jesus is by nature) to a functional statement (the role Jesus plays).
This of course does not mean the end of Christianity. Allah (swt) tells us that they (along with the Jews) will be in schism until the day of judgement.
“And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 5:14)
Christianity has three last stages until it is completely irrelevant.
A shift in the West from Protestant tradition to Catholic Orthodox and Eastern Churches.
Marcionism we are entering that stage. By attacking Islam many Christians are essentially attacking the Old Testament.
Full Marcionism. Eventually a complete break with the Old Testament. This serves a number of purposes. It makes Christianity easier to defend from a moral and ethical angle. Also, it will distance themselves from any grip that Jews or Judaism (Zionism) has over them.
The first four pieces of evidence we will advance to show that Jesus was never the only son.
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only (monogenē) Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)
“…because he has not believed in the name of the only (monogenē) Son of God.” (John 3:18)
“In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only (monogenē) Son into the world, so that we might live through him.” (1 John 4:9)
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only (monogenē) Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)
At first blush one may be excused to think that these texts argue that Jesus is the only Son of God. However, there is a descriptor that precludes this altogether. He is the monogenē. Which is one of a kind.
To give an example. A father could have three sons. Two of the sons are twins. Therefore the son who does not have a twin is unique. He is one of a genes. He is one of a kind. He is never the only kind. He is never the only one.
Further evidence.
“By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only (monogenē) son.” (Hebrews 11:17)
The example of Isaac being called Abraham’s monogenēs despite Abraham having other sons (Ishmael and Keturah’s sons) proves that monogenēs does not mean “only one numerically.” It means “unique” or “one of a kind.” The Trinitarian attempt to use monogenēs as proof of exclusive, solitary divine sonship collapses once we see that the same Greek word is used of Isaac, who was plainly not an only child.
The case of John 1:18
“No one has seen God at any time. The only (monogenēs) Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” (John 1:18)
The above text has a variant reading. Christians are not sure which is the original. The variant reading would be: “No one has seen God at any time. The only (monogenēs) God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.”
Neither reading would be strange knowing what we know about henotheism.
One reading is that a unique Son of God made known the Father. The other reading would be one of the many gods made known the Father (god).
Our second set of evidence from John.
“Do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’ (John 10:36)
Context.
“Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?” (John 10:31-36)
Let us deal with the major problem of the error of Jesus. Jesus is making a blunder by misquoting the Tanakh. There is no such statement written ‘in your law’. It is found in the Psalms.
“I had taken you for divine beings, attendants *attendants Lit. “sons.” of the Most High, all of you;
Obviously Judaism trying to pretend that it is a monotheistic tradition. Instead of henotheism which it plainly is. It is struggling with how to render the above text.
Jesus here is trying to reason with this particular group of Jews. That there are many in the divine assembly called gods. The Jewish god is simply the chief god among them. In this worldview if there are many gods or many called gods then there is no problem if Jesus is a son among sons.
Jesus and the blind man. Son of God/Son of Man.
“Then they turned again to the blind man, “What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened.” The man replied, “He is a prophet.” (John 9:17)
The variant reading of John 9:35
“Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” (John 9:35)
In other variant readings it has ‘Son of God’.
So given our proof initial evidence that we have laid out from the five proof text it must then follow that this is the case for everything that is ascribed to the author called ‘John’.
This would include the following text:
1 John 3:8 1 John 4:15 1 John 5:5 1 John 5:10-13 1 John 5:20 John 20:31 John 11:27 John 1:49 John 1:34 John 11:4 John 5:25 Revelation 2:18
“But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31)
Given what we have shown — that Jesus is a son of God, and that John’s Gospel never presents Jesus as the only son of God — we should then expect if the New Testament is theologically in harmony then this should be the position of the entire New Testament.
Is there any text in the New Testament that explicitly describes Jesus as the exclusive, singular Son of God, to the total exclusion of all others?
To find that, we have to move away from the word monogenēs and look at how the Greek language handles the definite article (“the”) and the concept of absolute singular inheritance.
In Greek grammar, when a writer wants to emphasize absolute exclusivity—that someone is the specific, singular entity to the exclusion of all others—they use a structure called the “double article.”
We see this explicitly in the confessions of Peter and Martha, and during Jesus’ trial. They do not say “a Son of God.” They use the Greek definite article ho (the) before both “Son” and “God.”
“You are the Christ, the Son of the God, the living [One].” (Greek: Σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος) –(Matthew 16:16)
“You are the Christ, the Son of God, the [One] coming into the world.” (Greek: λέγει αὐτῷ, Ναί, κύριε· ἐγὼ πεπίστευκα ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐρχόμενος)-(John 11:27)
By placing the definite article ὁ (ho / “the”) directly before “Son,” the Greek text moves from an indefinite category (“a son”) to an exclusive, particular title (“the Son”).
However, recall what we have already received from John. That Jesus is one of a kind and not the only of his kind. So John 11:27 has to be harmonized with this. Given that Matthew 16:16 is given a similar example it too has to be harmonized with this.
Let us say that the father’s name is David. So let us say that one of those sons is named Tommy. Tommy is handicapped. So if we say, “You are the Handicapped the Son of the living David.” This in and of itself does not deny other sons. It means the other sons do not have this descriptor.
By adding a unique descriptor (the Christ) or a unique modifier (handicapped) isolates that specific individual within their role, but it does absolutely nothing to grammatically eliminate the existence of other sons.
The evidence of Hebrews 1:5
“For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have (gennaō) begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says.”
This shows that the author is addressing what must have been a prevalent belief that angels are sons of God.
“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.” (Job 1:6)
This author still has not addressed how Jesus is the only Son of God. The author is simply saying how this particular son is special. Even in the text itself is a glaring admission. “I will be to him A Father and he will be to me A son.”
This is a quote from
“I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.” (2 Samuel 7:14)
This text establishes four points.
That God will be the father of Jesus. Not that currently is or has been from eternity past.
That this God is ‘a’ father to Jesus. Not his only one. This is why Jesus had at times to distinguish which father he was talking about. “the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21)
That Jesus will be a son. Not that Jesus currently is or has been from eternity past.
That Jesus is ‘a’ son. Not that Jesus is the only son. The New Testament never once claims that Jesus is the only Son of God.
Not only is the text in Hebrew 1:5 quoting (2 Samuel 7:14) but it also quotes Psalms2:7.
“I will tell of the decree: The lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have (yə·liḏ·tî·ḵā.) begotten you.” (Psalm 2:7)
This text does not mean that Jesus is ontologically the Son of God. Rather he gets taken or adopted as a Son of God. Saying Jesus is ontologically the Son of God means he is the same nature, being, and essence as God
“Say, He Allah is Absolute. That which is independent of all but which all things are dependent upon. He does not bring forth like kind nor was he from like kind. And there is no equivalent to His being Absolute.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)
Originally this text was addressed to king David who was a grown man. King David is not ontologically the Son of God.
So ask any Christian if David is not ontologically the Son of God what does it mean when it says that God has begotten him to a grown man?
Because an adult king cannot be metaphysically born on his coronation day, the word “begotten” (yalad in Hebrew, gennaō in Greek) in royal contexts means exaltation to an office, not the generation of a nature.
They say:’ ‘The All-merciful has taken to Him a son.‘ Glory be to Him! Nay, but they are honoured slaves.” (Qur’an 21:26)
“And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died, he said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!” (Mark 15:39)
“The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.” (Luke 23:47)
The variant reading of Acts 3:26.
“Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” (Acts 3:26 King James Version)
“To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.” (Acts 3:26 New King James Version)
Notice that the King James Version calls Jesus “his Son”,Whereas the New King James Version calls Jesus “His Servant” and whenever you see that word “servant” in the New Testament, it means slave.
So we have established from the theology of Hebrews 1:5 the following:
Jesus was never the only Son of God.
Jesus was never the Son of God from eternity past.
The text undermines the classic Trinitarian concept of “Eternal Sonship.”
If Hebrews is to be a theologically consistent text then this must be the theology for the following text:
Hebrews 4:14 Hebrews 6:6 Hebrews 10:29
We have established using the four proof text in John’s Gospel as well as the statement in Hebrew 1:5 to prove that the New Testament never calls Jesus, monos huios (only son).
Psalms2:7 when does Jesus actuallybecome a Son of God in the New Testament?
Paul believed that Jesus was declared to be a Son of God by his resurrection from the dead.
There is no evidence that Paul believed in the virgin birth of Jesus.
Paul did not believe that Jesus was a Son of God from eternity past.
We will assume that Paul is the author of the following text under discussion.
“Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed (spermatos) of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” (Romans 1:3-4)
Literal Translation: “…the [one] designated/decreed/appointed Son of God in power… by the resurrection from the dead…”
Paul believed that Jesus was the literal seed (spermatos) of David. The mention of ‘sperm’ (spermatos) is difficult to reconcile with a virgin birth narrative. Paul also did not believe that Jesus was an eternal Son of God. Jesus becomes adopted as a Son of God by his resurrection from the dead.
“But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son [singular, definite], born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” (Galatians 4:4-5)
Again. Paul mentions Jesus born of a woman. No mention of a virgin birth.
At first glance, a Trinitarian reading jumps to the conclusion that “God sent forth his Son” means a pre-existent divine being was sent down from heaven. However, when we apply the legal, covenantal framework of Davidic sonship, a completely different, highly unified picture emerges.
In biblical language, when God “sends” or “sends forth” someone, it routinely describes the functional commissioning of a human agent or prophet to a specific task. It does not imply that the person existed in heaven before they were born.
Consider how the Gospel of John uses the exact same concept:
“There was a man sent from God, whose name was John [the Baptist].” (John 1:6)
Nobody reads John 1:6 and concludes that John the Baptist was a pre-existent eternal being who descended from heaven. He was “sent” because he was given a divine mission.
Once again look how Paul applies Psalm2:7. He applies it to the resurrection of Jesus.
“And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm: ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.'” (Acts 13:32-33)
Just as Jesus is an adopted son of God Christians can also become adopted sons/daughters of God.
“He predestined us for adoption as His sons through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will.” (Ephesians 1:5)
“And: “I will bea Father to you, and you will be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.” (2 Corinthians 6:18)
Given what we know from Pauls theology concerning Jesus and his sonship this would apply to the following text:
Galatians 2:20 2 Corinthians 1:19 Ephesians 4:13
We further see that Jesus is not the only Son of God but rather an older brother in a larger divine family. We will discuss this now.
The Problem of “Firstborn” (Prōtotokos)
“For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn (prōtotokon) among many brothers and sisters.” (Romans 8:29)
“And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn (prōtotokos) from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.” (Colossians 1:18)
Because the New Testament avoids calling Jesus the monos (mathematically only) son, it frequently uses another word that causes immense trouble for Trinitarian theology: Prōtotokos meaning “Firstborn.”
For a Trinitarian, “Firstborn” has to be heavily explained away as a metaphor meaning “supreme ruler” or “preeminent.” But if you pair prōtotokos with the grammatical reality we discussed—that the New Testament doesn’t textually isolate Jesus as the only son—the natural, plain reading of the text shifts dramatically. He looks less like a member of a co-equal Trinity and more like the elder brother or the first son in a larger divine family.
When you read the Nicene Creed (the definitive formula for the Trinity), the language shifts radically away from the flexible, conversational style of the New Testament into rigid, Western, mathematical exclusivity:
“…And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds… Very God of Very God… being of one substance with the Father…”
By noticing that the New Testament itself doesn’t actually say this, you expose a massive historical gap. The Trinity cannot be read straight off the pages of the Bible using strict grammar; it requires a massive philosophical overlay that was forced onto the text centuries later to make the language exclusive.
Psalms2:7 when does Jesus actuallybecome a Son of God in the New Testament?
The baptismal announcement.
“And behold, a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’ (Matthew 3:17)
Note: Matthew records the voice speaking in the third person, as a public declaration to the crowd.
“And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:11)
Note: Mark records the voice speaking in the second person, addressing Jesus directly.
“And the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.’ (Luke 3:22)
Note: Found in the oldest Alexandrian codices like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, matching Mark exactly.
The Western Textual Variant for Luke 3:22
In a major ancient textual branch known as the Western Text—most famously preserved in the 5th-century Greek/Latin manuscript Codex Bezae (Manuscript D)—the voice from heaven does not say “with you I am well pleased.” Instead, it quotes Psalm 2:7 word-for-word:
“…and a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you.'”(Greek: υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε)
“And the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you.” (Luke 3:22)
Prima Qur’an comments: First it should be noted that none of the above text speak about an only son. They are texts that talk about a particular son.
The case of Matthew.
Matthew begins his gospel with a detailed genealogy and a virgin birth narrative (Matthew 1:18–25). In Matthew’s theology, Jesus’ identity as a Son of God is established biologically and ontologically from the very moment of his conception by the Holy Spirit.
Because Jesus’ identity is already a settled, historical fact before he ever reaches the Jordan River, Matthew subtly alters the baptism text:
Matthew 3:17:“This is my beloved Son…”
The voice does not address Jesus (“You are”). It addresses the bystanders (“This is”). It is a public revelation to the crowd, confirming what the narrative has already established to the reader: this man is the miraculous, virgin-born Son. Jesus does not need to be informed; the audience does.
The case of Mark.
Mark’s Gospel has no virgin birth narrative and no childhood stories. It begins abruptly with Jesus as an adult walking out of Nazareth to be baptized.
Because Mark lacks a biological explanation for Jesus’ sonship, the baptism scene carries the entire theological weight of his identity. And as we pointed out, the grammar reflects a completely different, highly personal experience:
Mark 1:11:“You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”
In Mark’s presentation, the voice speaks directly and exclusively to Jesus. Textually, this reads as a personal awakening or an official investment of an office.
If Mark intended his readers to believe Jesus was the uncreated, pre-existent Son from all eternity, starting the book with an adult man who needs to be personally told by a voice from heaven, “You are my Son,” is a highly counterproductive way to write. It perfectly aligns with an Adoptionist framework, where Jesus is chosen and appointed at this exact moment.
The text of Mark 1:1.
Textual critics have discovered that the phrase “the Son of God” (υἱοῦ θεοῦ) is entirely missing from some of our oldest, most important uncial manuscripts, most notably Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Koridethi
Sample of a Greek Bible manuscript, Codex Sinaiticus (4th century AD), Mark 1, 1 – 3 and 9 – 10. Facsimile, published in 1862.
Source: (Codex Sinaiticus column detail of Mark 1:1. Source: ZU_09 / Getty Images)
Scribes were notorious for “orthodox corruption”—adding titles of high christology to verses to combat heresies. It is highly likely that an early scribe looked at Mark’s abrupt opening, realized it lacked a virgin birth or any explicit declaration of divine sonship until the baptism, and “corrected” verse 1 by adding “the Son of God” to make the book sound safer and more orthodox from the very first line.
If the original text of Mark simply read, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” then Mark does not introduce Jesus as the Son of God until the voice tells him so at his baptism.
Luke’s Harmonizing Strategy
Luke presents the final piece of the puzzle. Like Matthew, Luke includes a virgin birth narrative(Luke 1:35), where the angel explicitly tells Mary that the child will be called a Son of God because of the Holy Spirit’s oversight.
Yet, when Luke gets to the baptism, he preserves the second-person address from Mark (“You are my beloved Son”).
This creates the exact structural tension that led to the creation of the Western Text variant we discussed earlier (“Today I have begotten you”). Early scribes working on Luke’s text recognized that if Luke already had a virgin birth narrative, keeping the baptismal formula as a time-stamped coronation (“Today I have begotten you”) created a blatant contradiction.
How can he be begotten at birth and begotten at baptism? To smooth this over, the Alexandrian textual line likely scrubbed the “Today” variant out of Luke to align it with Matthew’s safer, static theological framework.
The text of Acts 8:37.
“And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.” (Acts 8:36-38)
“Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.” (Acts 8:36-38)
There are two different manuscript traditions. Christians are not certain as to which of these are more correct.
The text of Matthew 16:16 and the parallel accounts.
“Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16).
Notice his response in the parallel accounts.
“You are the Christ,’ Peter answered.” (Mark 8:29)
“Peter answered, ‘The Christ of God.” (Luke 9:20)
Here is the logical syllogism:
The three accounts describe the exact same historical conversation.
Mark and Luke record Peter saying only “The Christ” or “The Christ of God.”
Matthew expands this to “The Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Therefore, either the gospels flatly contradict each other on what Peter actually muttered, OR “Christ” and “Son of God” are being used as functional synonyms.
And since “Christ” (Christos / Mashiach) literally means “Anointed One”—a political, royal title for an appointed human king—then “Son of God” in Matthew’s confession must mean exactly the same thing: the anointed one.
If anyone doubts our reconciliation—that “Christ” and “Son of God” are simply synonyms for an appointed ruler—Matthew himself proves our point later during Jesus’ trial.
Look at the exact wording the High Priest uses to force Jesus under oath:
“I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” (Matthew 26:63)
The High Priest is not a Christian. He does not believe in the Trinity, nor is he asking Jesus a metaphysical question about his eternal divine essence. He is a Jewish judge asking a political, messianic question: “Are you claiming to be the Anointed Davidic King (the Christ), who is entitled to the royal title ‘Son of God’ via the covenant of David?
Lastly, as a bonus, we want to discuss Isaiah 9:6
The popular Christian version of Isaiah 9:6 is not even in Septuagint!
“For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will rest on his shoulders. And he will be called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)
“For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.”(Isaiah 9:6 -The Septuagint– The Holy Spirit’s Fav Version)
Where are all these other names?
So who is upon the truth? Are Latin Roman Catholics, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox upon guidance for trusting a text that does not make Christological claims about Jesus, such as calling him (Jesus) ‘The Everlasting Father’? Claims that contradict the idea that Jesus is not the Father?
Or are those Protestants who trust in the Masoretic text (although they still give it a Christological bent) upon the truth?
Only one person in the Jewish scriptures is referred to as “mighty god” and his name is Hizkiyyahu or, Hezekiah (mighty god). Jewish names, like many Muslims’ names, are what one may call a theophoric name. The 1st century Christians did not use Isaiah 9:6 for Christological purposes. Latter ones did, though. Changing the Hebrew perfect tense to future tense.
In conclusion, the New Testament never says Jesus is the only Son of God.
It calls Him monogenēs (unique), prōtotokos (firstborn), huios (son) with the definite article, but never monos huios (only son). The Trinitarian reading requires importing a philosophical exclusivity that the text does not supply.
It does not take a genius to tell you this breaks the Trinity.
If you enjoyed this article you may be interested in the following:
“And give full measure when you measure, and weigh with an even balance. That is the best way and best in result.” (Qur’an 17:35)
﷽
Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq doing what he does best which is giving the Daw’ah on the streets of America. Cannot underscore how important this is. Calling people to Islam IS the work of the Prophets. It is the best way. It is a collective obligation upon the Muslims. So may Allah (swt) continue to bless Shaykh Uthman in that regards.
However, equally important is to call them to the Qur’an and Sunnah. To call them to sound doctrine.
Listen to the interaction in the video above:
Shaykh Uthman says: “Let me ask you a question o.k? If you don’t accept Jesus can you go to heaven?” The woman replies, “No.”
Shaykh Uthman says, ‘O.K Let me ask you a scenario, right?” “And, and so. There’s a girl doesn’t believe in Jesus. Let’s say she’s Hindu right? 14,15, 18 year old girl, and a man, a Christian man rapes and murders her. Rapes her cuts her up cuts her throat but he believes in Jesus. Who goes to heaven?”
Woman inquires, “She does not believe in Jesus?” Shaykh Uthman reiterates: “She does not believe in Jesus.”
The woman states: “If she has not like received or trusted (Shaykh Uthman inputs “yes”) due to the fact (unintelligible).”
Shaykh Uthman says, “She does not believe in Jesus she’s Hindu.”
The woman responds: “Than she is eternally separated from (unintelligible)”
Shaykh Uthman says, “she’s gonna go to hell, and he, the murderer, rapist is gonna go to heaven?” “You guys, you guys I can’t believe your telling me this. I cannot believe you’re saying this. And I’m really sad.” “You’re saying that rapist, murderer is gonna go to heaven and the poor innocent girl that got raped and murdered is gonna go to hell, going to be separated from hell/heaven and go to hell!?”
The woman responds: “She doesn’t know the Lord, yes.”
Shaykh Uthman responds: “That is that is you can’t believe that?!”
However, what would his response be if someone asked him, “What would your response be if a Muslim did that?”
What is the Shaykh response to his belief if this rapist/murderer was a Muslim?
Now for the Christian who likes to speak about the justice of God Shaykh Uthman’s question does present a conundrum for them. Now the more learned Christian may try and reply using the following text:
“For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.” (Jude 1:4)
But the point still stands. No one is saying that grace is a license for immorality; however, this Christian man in a moment of passion being weak in the flesh raped this woman and killed her. However, according to the Christian woman’s reasoning that man will go to heaven.
Now, the best Shaykh Uthman can do is say that the Muslim rapist and murderer will take a detour to hell (for an unspecified period of time) however, he too enters heaven.
Now what would have made this more interesting is if it was asked what happened if the murderer/rapist died immediately after the incident (as a Christian/ as a Muslim). The Christian response has been given. However, the Muslim response?
“Say: What! shall I seek a Lord other than Allah? And He is the Lord of all things; and no soul earns (evil) but against itself, and no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another; then to your Lord is your return, so He will inform you of that in which you differed.” (Qur’an 6:164)
“No soul burdened with sin will bear the burden of another. And if a sin-burdened soul cries for help with its burden, none of it will be carried—even by a close relative.” (Qur’an 35:18)
“And most certainly they shall carry their own burdens, and other burdens with their own burdens, and most certainly they shall be questioned on the resurrection day as to what they forged.” (Qur’an 29:13)
“That no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another, and that man shall have nothing but what he strives for.” (Qur’an 53:38-39)
﷽
Before we dive into this it is helpful for us to bring some additional verses of the Qur’an as well as a sacred transmission reported from the Blessed Prophet (saw).
“And fear the Day when you shall be brought back to Allah. Then shall every soul be paid what it earned, and none shall be dealt with unjustly.” (Qur’an 2:281)
“Verily We! We shall raise the dead. And We write down that which they send before and their footsteps. And everything We have counted up in a Book luminous.” (Qur’an 36:12)
Two additional translations of Qur’an 36:12
“Truly, We give life to the dead and We write down what they put forward and their effects. We counted everything in a clear record.” (Qur’an 36:12)
“Surely We will give new life to the dead, and We are recording whatever (deeds) they send before them and whatever effects they leave behind. Every thing is fully computed by Us in a manifest book of record.” (Qur’an 36:12)
It was narrated from Mundhir bin Jarir that his father said:
“The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘Whoever introduces a good practice that is followed, he will receive its reward and a reward equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their reward in the slightest.. And whoever introduces a bad practice that is followed, he will receive its sin and a burden of sin equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their burden in the slightest.'”
1) Fear the day that you will be returned to Allah.
This is the first information we should know. On this Earth, we are living and breathing, and one day we will die. When we die our body dies. However, the soul remains and that soul will return to Allah (swt). Whether you like it or not. Whether you believe it or not.
2) Then every soul will be compensated for what it has earned. Good earnings or bad earnings.
3) They will not be treated unjustly. This should make us happy as well as absolutely terrify us simultaneously.
Why is that? It makes us happy because now we know that Allah (swt) does not want only to punish us. Allah (swt) is not looking for an excuse just to throw us in hellfire. So this is very comforting to the believers.
Now it is also terrifying to know He is treating us justly because if Allah (swt) accounts for every single thing that we do—all mistakes, infractions, shortfalls—it is frightening., it is frightening.
4) Surely we give life to the dead. On the day of resurrection all the dead will be brought back to life. We will be reunited with our bodies, flesh and all. We will be waiting for the decree of Allah.
5) We write down what they have sent before and their footprints.
When you die your record goes before Allah and your footprints…
What is meant by the footprints (or traces) as other translations put it?
Imagine if you will someone walking in the desert and they are just passing by and the people coming after him they do not see the man but they see the footprints on the sand. They can see that someone has passed by here. They will acknowledge that someone has passed by.
This has to do with our deeds!
Example: Someone is selling drugs to young kids and this drug dealer dies. So in his record it is recorded that this person was drug dealer and sold drugs (end of story).
However, there is something added to the book which is the footprints (traces).
Now those small boys whom the drug dealer sold the drugs to they became addicted they became criminals they grew up to become drug dealers themselves.
So guess what? Who takes that burden who takes that responsibility? The initial drug dealer.
Of course those people are responsible for their own actions that they have acquired, yet, we cannot forget the initial drug dealer is responsible for this cascading chain of events and so the initial drug dealer shares in the evil that his actions wrought!
So this should make every one of us extremely cautious about what we do, what we say, and our influence upon others. So don’t think when you die you will only be rewarded for what you did. You will be rewarded for all the good that you initiated and others followed and were encouraged by. Likewise you will be punished for all the evil, wrongdoing, misguidance, lies, cheating etc. that others emulated, followed and in turn encouraged others to emulate.
If you make a video and post it on YouTube showing people how to break into a house, how to crack an encryption, and then, look, it goes viral.
Look at that word, viral! It now spreads and multiplies how evil is the return.
It was narrated from Mundhir bin Jarir that his father said:
“The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘Whoever introduces a good practice that is followed, he will receive its reward and a reward equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their rewardin the slightest.And whoever introduces a bad practice that is followed, he will receive its sin and a burden of sin equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their burden in the slightest.'”
Jarir b. Abdullah reported that some desert Arabs clad in woollen clothes came to Allah’s Messenger (saw). He saw them in sad plight as they had been hard pressed by need. He (the Holy Prophet) exhorted people to give charity, but they showed some reluctance until (signs) of anger could be seen on his face. Then a person from the Ansar came with a purse containing silver. Then came another person and then other persons followed them in succession until signs of happiness could be seen on his (sacred) face. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (saw) said:
He who introduced some good practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect. And he who introduced some evil practice in Islam which had been followed subsequently (by others), he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this (evil practice) without their’s being diminished in any respect.
“And most certainly they shall carry their own burdens, and other burdens with their own burdens, and most certainly they shall be questioned on the resurrection day as to what they forged.” (Qur’an 29:13)
“Truly, We give life to the dead and We write down what they put forward and their effects. We counted everything in a clear record.” (Qur’an 36:12)
So in simple terms none of us will get rewarded for the good that others do or punished for the evil that others do. However, we can have shared reward and shared punishment based upon the influence of good or evil that we have upon others.
May Allah (swt) rectify our condition and cause us to be examples of good for others to emulate!
The fact that Allah (swt) does not cause us to bare the burdens of the sins of others is an established fact that even the Jews and Christians can find remnants of in their teachings:
“And when there came to them a Messenger from Allah, confirming what was with them, a faction of those who were given the Scripture threw the Scripture of Allah behind their backs, as though they didn’t know.” (Qur’an 2:101)
“And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad—they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it.” (Deuteronomy 1:39)
“And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:3)
All little children are those to whom the kingdom of heaven belongs. Therefore, all little children are persons without sin.
“The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.” (Ezekiel 18:20)
“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16)
“Yet he did not put the children of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the Lord commanded: “Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.” (2 Kings 14:6)
“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” (John 9:3)
The above texts record that the child will not bear the sin of their father. Therefore, all men are not born totally depraved.
At the very least this position as outlined in Islam, Judaism, and some interpretations of Christianity such as: Eastern Orthodox, and those Christian Churches and Churches of Christ often called: “Campbellites” have this as a common perspective.
In short: No one is punished for another’s sin. Everyone is rewarded or punished for their own deeds. And additionally, one is held accountable for the chain of influence they initiate—good or evil.
May Allah make us among those who leave behind good footprints (athar hasan) and protect us from being a means of misguidance. Amin.
But as for those who defiantly disobeyed, their refuge is the Fire. Every time they wish to emerge from it, they will be returned to it while it is said to them, “Taste the punishment of the Fire which you used to deny.” (Qur’an 32:20)
“Indeed, the righteous will be in pleasure, And indeed, the wicked will be in Hellfire. They will [enter to] burn therein on the Day of Recompense, And will not be removed from it.” (Qur’an 82:13-16)
﷽
There seems to be some bizarre hadith that are accepted among Sunni Muslims that indicate that Muslims who are destined for hellfire would be ransomed by the hellfire by a Christian or a Jew. Thus, the Christian or the Jew would go to hellfire in place of the Muslims!
We will give the hadith that the Sunni Muslims rely upon for this as well as some of the justifications put forward by their scholars. Then we will give the Ibadi critique of these hadith and why they do not meet our standards.
The hadith that are brought forward to support this are as follows:
Abu Musa’ reported that Allah’s Messenger (saw) said:
When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire.
Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Messenger (saw) said:
No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire. ‘Umar b. Abd al-‘Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah’s Messenger (saw).
Abu Burda reported Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying:
There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians. (As far as I think), Abu Raub said: I do not know as to who is in doubt. Abu Burda said: I narrated it to ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, whereupon he said: Was it your father who narrated it to you from Allah’s Apostle (saw)? I said: Yes.
It seems that there is also a belief held among Sunni Muslims that every person has a place for them in hell and in heaven. This is coupled with the belief that there is a pre-destined and pre-scribed number of people destined for both hell and heaven.
Allah (swt) has never described the hellfire as a place in which it becomes full.
“The Day We will ask Hell, “Are you full?” And it will respond, “Are there any more?” (Qur’an 50:30)
Prima Qur’an comments: In trying to answer why the Jews and Christians in particular are singled out , the Ash’ari, Maliki, Sufi, Al-Qadi ‘Iyad said:
“Because every accountable person has a place in Paradise and a place in Hell, whoever believes truly, his place in Hell will be replaced with a place in Paradise, but for the one who does not believe it will be the opposite, and it will be as if the disbelievers took the places of the believers in Hell. Moreover, because Allah has sworn to fill Hell, it will be filled with the disbelievers so as to save the believers from the Fire. So in that regard they are like a ransom for the believers. Perhaps the reason why the Jews and Christians are singled out for mention is because they are well known for their opposition to the Muslims and for being their opposites with regard to believing in the Messenger, which dictates that they should be saved.” End quote from Mirqaat al-Mafaateeh (8/3525).
Prima Qur’an comments: For us we do not accept the reasoning of Qadi ‘Iyad.
Furthermore the site says:
“On the Day of Resurrection there will be a Jew or a Christian for every Muslim, who will be his ransom from the Fire. That does not contradict the fact that some Muslims sinners will enter the Fire for their sins, so that Allah may purify them thereof, because they will enter it, then they will be brought out of it by Allah’s mercy, then they will enter Paradise, where they will inherit what would have been the disbelievers’ places in it, because Allah has forbidden it to the disbelievers.”
Prima Qur’an comments: The above comment is to be dismissed for the following reasons:
There is absolutely not a single statement or example anywhere in the Qur’an of the believer entering the hellfire. Not one.
There is absolutely not a single statement or example anywhere in the Qur’an of the disbelievers leaving the hellfire. Not one.
On the basis of Aqidah (Creed) the above statement makes no sense. Because if there is a place reserved in hell and heaven for every person created are we truly to believe that the Blessed Prophet (saw), The Prophets in general, small children and so forth have an abode in hellfire? May Allah forgive us and guide us to the truth.
On the basis of Mantiq (Logic) the above statement makes no sense. It’s as if the belief is there is an abode in heaven and hell for all creation but one takes the place of the other, which means there would be empty or reserved spots in both heaven and hell if this was a one to one to every person who has ever lived.
“The words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), “Allah (swt) will give every Muslim a Jew or a Christian, and He will say: This is your ransom from the Fire.” Indicate that this bounty will include all the Muslims, with no exceptions, because ransom is salvation, as mentioned above, and salvation will be for every Muslim. That is not contradicted by the fact that he may enter the Fire, because his entering it will be for the purpose of purification.”
Prima Qur’an comments: The above comment is dismissed for the following reasons:
“Allah (swt) will give every Muslim” is contradicted by text that state: “There would come people amongst the Muslims.” So which did the Blessed Prophet (saw) say?
On the basis of Aqidah (Creed) the above statement makes no sense. Because if there is a place reserved in hell and heaven for every person created are we truly to believe that the Blessed Prophet (saw), The Prophets in general, small children and so forth have an abode in hellfire? We seek refuge in Allah from such beliefs!
There is absolutely not a single statement or example anywhere in the Qur’an of the believer entering the hellfire. Not one.
There is absolutely not a single statement or example anywhere in the Qur’an of the disbelievers leaving the hellfire. Not one.
The Ibadi objection.
Our core argument is that these ahadith contradict the clear, unambiguous muhkamat of the Qur’an.
The wicked will not be removed from Hell (82:13-16). This directly contradicts the idea that anyone leaves Hellfire after entering.
Disbelievers will be told “Taste the punishment… you used to deny” (32:20). There is no escape clause.
Therefore, any hadith that suggests:
A Jew or Christian can be a “ransom” for a Muslim, or
Any believer will enter Hellfire (even temporarily), or
Any disbeliever will leave Hellfire
must be shadh (anomalous) or munkar (rejected), regardless of its chain. A sahih chain does not override a sahih text (the Qur’an).
For the Ibadi, this is sufficient to reject these hadith.
The Ibadi Mustalah al-Hadith. We focus on illah (pl. ‘ilal) which refers to a subtle, hidden defect that undermines the authenticity of a hadith, despite its chain of narrators appearing perfectly sound on the surface.
First thing we can notice is that in the matn (the actual text) of the hadith there are some quite notably strange peculiarities.
Defect #1
“Umar b. Abd al-‘Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah’s Messenger.”
This shows that Umar b. Abd al-‘Aziz took issue with the transmission and demanded that the narrator swear an oath regarding it.
Defect #2
If he was satisfied with the oath he would not need to have included that in the transmission. However, the one who transmits includes the doubt and includes the oath.
The defects as discussed above indicates the narration was mawquf (stopping at a Companion) or mudtarib (shaky). Swearing an oath is not a method of authentication in hadith sciences—it reveals doubt.
Defect #3.
Why the mention of Jews and Christians being a ransom and not mention the Sabians or Zoroastrians or others? What makes the Jews and Christians particularly targeted?
This suggests takhsis (specification) without a Qur’anic basis. If Hell must be filled, any disbeliever would suffice. Mentioning Jews/Christians alone hints at polemical or historical insertion (e.g., early Muslim-Jewish-Christian disputes).
Defect #4. Some what related to defect #3 is that Seeing that the Jews and Christians are Mushrik, why not just simply say that the Mushrik are a ransom?
Defect #5. The conflicting nature of the text:
a) There would come people amongst the Muslims
b) No Muslim would die but Allah would admit
c) Allah would deliver to every Muslim
So is it every Muslim or a group from among the Muslims? That is a huge difference.
A clear idtarab (confusion) in the matn. A prophetic statement would not vacillate between universal and partial inclusion.
Defect #6. Abu Raub said: I do not know as to who is in doubt. Meaning he has doubts about who has doubts about this transmission: Did Umar b. Abd al-‘Aziz express doubt about the transmission, or was doubt expressed about Umar b. Abd al-‘Aziz’s transmission?
This is a sanad collapse. When transmitters themselves cannot identify the source of doubt, the hadith becomes majhul (unknown) and is discarded.
The Ibadi school, Ahl al-Haqq wa-l istiqama (The People of Truth and Straightness) have more than sufficient reasons to dismiss the above hadith. The attempts to explain them by Sunni scholars are not convincing.
We also want to share with you (the respected readers) an easy identifier to show that a hadith which has been classified as ‘sahih’ (sound) itself has doubtful things within it.
Many of you have possibly read our article in which we ripped apart a hadith classified as ‘sahih’ that was attributed to the Blessed Prophet (saw).
“Abu Umamah saw heads (of the Khawarij) hanging on the streets of Damascus. He said: ‘The dogs of the Fire and the worst dead people under the canopy of the heavens. The best dead men are those whom these have killed.’ He then recited: On the Day when some faces will become white and some faces will become black… (3:106) until the end of the Ayah. I said to Abu Umamah: ‘Did you hear IT from the Messenger of Allah (saw)?’ He said: ‘If I had not heard IT but one time, or two times, or three times, or four times – until he reached seven – I would not have narrated it to you.”
Now, we also want to share with you two more hadith and then we want to discuss something about the matn or text. It is absolutely relevant to this blog entry.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (saw) said, “A group of Israelites were lost. Nobody knows what they did. But I do not see them except that they were cursed and changed into rats, for if you put the milk of a she-camel in front of a rat, it will not drink it, but if the milk of a sheep is put in front of it, it will drink it.” I told this to Ka`b who asked me, “Did you hear it from the Prophet (saw) ?” I said, “Yes.” Ka`b asked me the same question several times. I said to Ka`b. “Do I read the Torah? (i.e. I tell you this from the Prophet.)“
Now what is very eye opening is that in the hadith above about a group of the Children of Israel turned into rats, or the hadith about the khawarij being the dogs of hellfire, or about Jews and Christians being ransom for Muslims from hellfire.
There are three things that the keen eye will notice about all of these hadith transmissions.
There is doubt expressed in the transmission.
One of the transmitters is having big doubts about what is being transmitted to him.
The inclusion of the doubt is included in the transmission rather than omitting it altogether.
We have extremely rigid methods for accepting narrations attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw).
There are theological views among the Sunni Muslims that teach things that have no basis in the Qur’an.
Among them are:
That a believer can enter into hellfire.
That a person may exit the hellfire.
Because the reality of these beliefs is established among the theological schools of Sunni Muslims, it has led them to have some subpar standards for grading and accepting narrationsattributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw).
If you have found the above entry beneficial we invite you to read the following:
As the two recording-angel sitting to the right, and the left—note, not a word does a person utter without having a observer ready.” (Qur’an 50:17-18)
“While you are certainly observed by vigilant, honourable angels, recording. They know whatever you do. (Qur’an 82:10-12)
﷽
Three categories on the day of judgement.
And you shall be three kinds (three groups) on that day. the people of the right, how will they be; the people of the left, how will they be; and the foremost will be the foremost ˹in Paradise˺.They are the ones nearest, in the Gardens of Bliss. A multitude from earlier generations. and a few from later generations. (Qur’an 56:8-14)
The people of the right
The people of the left.
The foremost.
The foremost are understood to be the Prophets of Allah (swt) and the martyrs.
A multitude from earlier generations. and a few from later generations.
The multitude from previous generations and later generations is a reference to those who came before the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) and those who came after him.
The Righteous: Given their record in the right hand.
As for those given their records in their right hand, they will cry happily, ‘Here, everyone! Read my record!'””I truly believed I would face my reckoning.””So they will be in a life of bliss,””In a lofty Paradise,””With clusters of fruit hanging low and near at hand.” “It will be said to them, ‘Eat and drink joyfully for what you did in the days past.'” (Qur’an 69:19-24)
The Wicked: Given their record in the left hand.
“But as for him who is given his record in his left hand, he will say, ‘Oh, I wish I had not been given my record!'” “And that I had never known how my account turned out!” “Oh, I wish my death had been the final one!””My wealth has not availed me at all.” “Gone from me is my power and authority.” (Qur’an 69:25-29)
The Punishment
“Seize him and shackle him!” “Then cast him into the blazing Fire.” “Then fasten him with a chain seventy cubits long.” (Qur’an 69:30-32)
The Reasons for Punishment
“For he never had (yu’minu) faith in Allah, the Greatest,” (Qur’an 69:33)
“And then being among those who believed and advised one another to patience and advised one another to compassion.” “Those are the Companions of the Right.” “But those who (kafarū) disbelieve in Our signs, they are the Companions of the Left.” (Qur’an 90:17-19)
The Two Fates
Those Given their Record in the Right Hand
“As for those who are given their record in their right hand, they will have an easy reckoning, and will return to their people joyfully.” (Qur’an 84:7-9)
Those Given their Record Behind their Backs
“And as for those who are given their record from behind their backs, they will cry for destruction, and will burn in the blazing Fire. For they used to be prideful among their people, thinking they would never return.” (Qur’an 84:10-14)
You can see trusted Sunni tafsir telling us that ‘behind their back’ also is meant by receiving with their left hands.
It was narrated that Safwan bin Muhriz Al-Mazini said:
“We were with ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar when he was circumambulating the House; a man came up to him and said: ‘O Ibn ‘Umar, what did you hear the Messenger of Allah say about the Najwa?’ He said: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘On the Day of Resurrection, the believer will be brought close to his Lord until He will cover him with His screen, then He will make him confess his sins. He will ask him: “Do you confess?” He will say: “O Lord, I confess.” This will continue as long as Allah wills, then He will say: “I concealed them for you in the world, and I forgive you for them today.” Then he will be given the scroll of his good deeds, or his record, in his right hand. But as for the (alkafir ‘aw almunafiq) disbeliever or the hypocrite, (his sins) will be announced before the witnesses.’ ” (One of the narrators) Khalid said: “At: ‘before the witnesses’ there is something missing.” “These are the ones who lied against their Lord!’ No doubt! The curse of Allah is on the wrongdoers.”
The question is asked: How will the sinful Muslim take his book of deeds on the day of Resurrection?
“As for the sinners among those who believed in Tawheed, who will enter Hell and then be brought forth from it, there is a difference of scholarly opinion concerning them. Some scholars say that they will take their books in their right hands and some say that they will take their books in their left hands.”
“Al-Safaareeni (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The kaafir will be given his book in his left hand from behind his back, and the sinful believer will be given his book in his left hand from in front of him, and the obedient believer will be given his book in his right hand from in front of him. Al-Maawirdi was certain that what is well known is that the (Muslim) evildoer who dies without having repented from his evildoing will take his book in his right hand, then he narrated an opinion which suggests that we should not discuss this matter and said: No one says that he will take it in his left hand.”
“Yoosuf ibn ‘Umar narrated that the Maalikis differed concerning sinners among those who believe in Tawheed. It was said that they will take their books in their right hands, and it was said that they will take them in their left hands.”
“With regard to the view that they will take their books in their right hands, it was said that they will take them before they enter the Fire, and that will be a sign that they will not abide therein forever. And it was said that they will take them after they are brought out of the Fire. And Allah knows best.”(Lawaami’ al-Anwaar al-Bahiyyah, 2/183 )”
“Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked: With regard to a believer who sins, will he take his book in his right hand or in his left hand? He replied: He will take it in his right hand.”(Al-As’ilah al-Mulhaqah bi Sharh al-Safaareeniyyah, p. 500).”
“It seems – and Allah knows best – that no one will take his book in his left hand except the kaafir, as is apparent from the verses quoted above.”
“What the Muslim should do is to strive hard to do acts of obedience and worship, and to do good deeds, so that he will be among those who are given their books in their right hands. May Allah make us among them.”
“And Allah knows best.”
Prima Qur’an comments:
We are not keen on what Al-Saffārīnī or ‘Uthaymeen of the Hanbali school say. We are not keen on what al-Mawardi, and the Shafi’i or the Maliki schools say. All of what has been stated by them is a far cry from the truth. It goes against the clear text of the Qur’an.
So let us look at what is claimed by Muhammed bin Ahmad al-Saffarini al-Hanbali.
“The kaafir will be given his book in his left hand from behind his back, and the sinful believer will be given his book in his left hand from in front of him, and the obedient believer will be given his book in his right hand from in front of him.”
However, the article itself says:
“These verses indicate that the believer who is destined for Paradise will take his book in his right hand, and that the kaafir who is doomed to Hell will take his book in his left hand, from behind his back.
The evidence that those who take their books in their left hands are the kaafirs is the verses in which Allah says:
“Verily, he used not to believe in Allah, the Most Great” [Al-Haaqqah 69:33]
“Verily, he thought that he would never come back (to Us)!” [Al-Inshiqaaq 84:14]
i.e., he thought that he would never return to Allah.
This is also indicated by the verse in which Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“But those who disbelieved in Our Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), they are those on the Left Hand (the dwellers of Hell)” [Al-Balad 90:19]
So the sinful believer cannot be the one who takes his book in his left hand from in front of him.
Let us look what is claimed by Alī ibn Muḥammed ibn Ḥabīb of the Shafi’i.
“Al-Maawirdi was certain that what is well known is that the (Muslim) evildoer who dies without having repented from his evildoing will take his book in his right hand, then he narrated an opinion which suggests that we should not discuss this matter and said: No one says that he will take it in his left hand.”
You say what we highlighted in red? Why should no one discuss this matter? Because it is a red flag that is why. Not is not known that the (Muslim) evildoer who dies without having repenting takes his book in his right hand. That is not what the Qur’an says at all!
Of course no one will say left hand because it is established that those who take the book in the left hand are the kufar (ungrateful).
Muḥammed bin Ṣāliḥ al-‘Uthaymīn of the Hanbali school states:
“Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked: With regard to a believer who sins, will he take his book in his right hand or in his left hand? He replied: He will take it in his right hand.“(Al-As’ilah al-Mulhaqah bi Sharh al-Safaareeniyyah, p. 500).”
Let us see how Allah (swt) describes the people of the right hand?
As for those given their records in their right hand, they will cry happily, ‘Here, everyone! Read my record!'””I truly believed I would face my reckoning.””So they will be in a life of bliss,””In a lofty Paradise,””With clusters of fruit hanging low and near at hand.” “It will be said to them, ‘Eat and drink joyfully for what you did in the days past.'” (Qur’an 69:19-24)
Does the above verse describe someone who knows they will burn in hellfire for an undisclosed period of time?
“As for those who are given their record in their right hand, they will have an easy reckoning, and will return to their people joyfully.” (Qur’an 84:7-9)
Can it truly be said of the one who is burned in hellfire for an undisclosed period of time that they will ‘have an easy reckoning’ ?
“(Then as for him who will be given his Record in his right hand, he surely, will receive an easy reckoning,) (84:7-8) meaning, easy without any difficulty. This means that he will not be investigated for all the minute details of his deeds. For verily, whoever is reckoned like that, he will certainly be destroyed.” –Ibn Kathir
“Then as for him who is given his book in his right hand,! he will receive an easy reckoning,That is, He forgives his sins and does not take him to account for them. Similarly it is related in a tradition that Allah, Exalted is He, if He wishes to conceal [the sins] of a servant on the Day of Resurrection, will show him only those sins which are known to Him and His servant, and then forgive him for them.”-Al Tustari.
Once again the position of the Ibadi school is clear.
There is not a single verse anywhere in the Qur’an that believers (mumin) enter the hellfire.
There is not a single verse anywhere in the Qur’an that the ungrateful (kafir) enter heaven.
The most sensible statement from the article above is the following:
“What the Muslim should do is to strive hard to do acts of obedience and worship, and to do good deeds, so that he will be among those who are given their books in their right hands. May Allah make us among them.”
Today we can only say: “Amin!” For this is what the Allah (swt) commanded of us.
The mainstream Sunni doctrine of temporary Hell for sinful Muslims relies on aḥādīth (e.g., intercession, removal of sinners from Hell) and interpretations that do their level best to harmonize aḥādīth with the Qur’an. But as we’ve demonstrated, the Qur’anic text itself makes no such provision.
Our conclusion is sound: the only safe course is to strive for the right hand, seek Allah’s forgiveness. Schools of thought can have thier disagreements However, the Qur’an’s clarity on the two fates is unmistakable.
“And they say, “Never will the Fire touch us, except for a few days.” Say, “Have you taken a covenant with Allah? For Allah will never break His covenant. Or do you say about Allah that which you do not know?” Yes, whoever earns evil and his sin has encompassed him – those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally.” (Qur’an 2:80-81)
“Allah effaces whatever He wills and retains whatever He wills. With Him is the Mother of the Book.” (Qur’an 13:39)
﷽
Some questions/objections that are raised by some on this particular subject.
For us the matter is clear, crystal clear.
The hellfire is eternal for who ever enters it.
Our creed is taken from clear verses and not verses subject to multiple interpretations.
Objections are based upon interpretations or emotive in nature.
There is not a single verse anywhere in the Qur’an that believers (mumin) enter the hellfire.
There is not a single verse anywhere in the Qur’an that the ungrateful (kafir) enter heaven.
The Qur’an has to be in harmony with all its verses.
Allah has prescribed mercy for himself.
You often see this quoted in discussions about the eternal suffering of the kafir. However, you usually do not see the verse quoted in its fullness.
“When the believers in Our revelations come to you, say, “Peace be upon you! Your Lord has taken upon Himself to be Merciful. Whoever among you commits evil ignorantly then repents afterwards and mends their ways, then Allah is truly All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 6:54)
“Say, “Unto whom belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and on the earth?” Say, “Unto Allah. He has prescribed Mercy for Himself. He will surely gather you on the Day of Resurrection, in which there is no doubt. Those who have lost their souls, they do not believe.” (Qur’an 6:12)
They will also quote the following hadith:
“Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “When Allah had finished His creation, He wrote over his Throne: ‘My Mercy preceded سَبَقَتْ (sabaqat) = preceded My Anger.’
When Allah created the creation as He was upon the Throne, He put down in His Book: Verily, My mercy predominates تَغْلِبُ (taghlibu) = prevails over / overcomesMy wrath.
First, it should be noted that none of those texts promise an eventual exit or release from hell at all. Neither do any of those texts promise anything about the punishment of hellfire being diminished.
This is completely subjective. There is no measurable scale. One could just as easily argue that Allah sparing no one from eternal hell is still an act of mercy relative to what sinners deserve.
You can see a distinction in the two hadith that are usually quoted.
تَغْلِبُ (taghlibu) = prevails over / overcomes
سَبَقَتْ (sabaqat) = preceded / has gone before
This is exactly why the lone narrator’s reports are not used to produce certainty in matters of creed. However, if we were to offer an interpretation and one interpretation is as good as any other, it would be this. That mercy preceded wrath in the form of sending prophets, scriptures, and warnings. Whoever rejects that mercy after it has come deserves the wrath.
“If Allah were to punish people for their wrongdoing, He would not have left a single living being on earth. But He delays them for an appointed term. And when their time arrives, they cannot delay it for a moment, nor could they advance it.” (Qur’an 16:61)
In a single act of defiance of our Sovereign Majestic Lord deserves utter destruction right then and there. Allah’s forbearance is mercy. His restraint is mercy.
Much of what is addressed here are old discussions that were discussed back and forth at a forum here:
“And they say, “Never will the Fire touch us, except for a few days.” Say, “Have you taken a covenant with Allah? For Allah will never break His covenant. Or do you say about Allah that which you do not know?” Yes, whoever earns evil and his sin has encompassed him – those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally.” (Qur’an 2:80-81)
And this alone should be sufficient.
Why would this be true only for Jews and not for every believer? On what consistent basis is this claim made?
“While the wicked will be in Hell. They will roast on the Day of Judgment. And they will never be absent from it.” (Qur’an 82: 14-16)
This verse above is also clear. It says that theywill never be absent from it. Not that they will be there forever and one day maybe not. Never. It is as clear as it may get.
“And when the appointed Day comes, no one shall even dare to speak except by the leave of Allah. Then some will be declared wretched, others blessed. As for the wretched, they shall be in the Fire, and in it they shall sigh and groan. They shall abide in it as long as the heavens and the earth endure, unless your Lord may will otherwise. Surely your Lord does whatsoever He wills. And as for those who are blessed, they shall abide in the Garden as long as the heavens and the earth endure, unless your Lord may will otherwise. They shall enjoy an unceasing gift.” (Qur’an 11:105-109)
So the main point of one of the commenters is as follows:
Notice God says “…your Lord carries out whatever He wills…” after the description of potential release from Hell, as if to support this possibility. Yet, after the same statement made in reference to Heaven, God says “…an unceasing gift”. He doesn’t say “…whatever He wills”, which would support the statement that Heaven will end, but rather “unceasing gift” supports the continuation of Heaven.
Point 1.
Nothing happens except by the will of Allah who has full and total control over all things.
“As for the Righteous, they will be in bliss; And the Wicked – they will be in the Fire, Which they will enter on the Day of Judgment, And they will not be able to keep away therefrom. And what will explain to you what the Day of Judgment is? Again, what will explain to you what the Day of Judgment is? (It will be) the Day when no soul shall have power (to do) aught for another: For the command, that Day, will be (wholly) with Allah.” (Qur’an 82:13-19)
They shall abide in (hellfire) it as long as the heavens and the earth endure, unless your Lord may will otherwise.
they shall abide in the Garden as long as the heavens and the earth endure, unless your Lord may will otherwise.
These people are clearly overlooking the eternality of the garden and hell based upon the eternality of the new heaven and earth itself.
“On the day when the earth is changed into another earth, as well as the heavens, and they emerged before Allah, the One, the Subduer.” (Qur’an 14:48)
Now let us do a thought experiment. What would be the reason or purpose for someone to leave paradise? Is there any text suggesting that a person would be expelled from or leave paradise after entering it?
“Then We said, “O Adam, you and your wife, both dwell in the Garden and eat to your hearts’ content where from you will, but do not go near this tree otherwise you shall become transgressors” After a time Satan tempted them with that tree to disobey Our Command and brought them out of the state they were in, and We decreed, “Now, go down all of you from here; you are enemies of one another. Henceforth you shall dwell and provide for yourselves on the Earth for a specified period.” At that time Adam learnt appropriate words from his Lord and repented, and his Lord accepted his repentance, for He is very Relenting and very Merciful.” (Quran 2:35-37)
Point 3.
The proponents of the idea that people will leave hell seem fixated on the the following endings:
After mentioning hellfire : Surely your Lord does whatsoever He wills.
After mentioning paradise, they shall enjoy an unceasing gift.
Yet, they seem to forget that both statements are preceded by: unless your Lord May will otherwise.
They wish to only focus on ‘They shall enjoy an unceasing gift’ and ignore that the text is preceded by ‘unless your Lord May will otherwise’ as well as ‘as long as the heavens and earth pass’.
For example, in the English language one may say:
Except as I will, you children may have all the chocolates on the table.
Or
You children may have all the chocolates on the table, except as I will.
Both sentence structures indicate that the children may enjoy as long as I will.
Point 4.
Inconsistent methodology.
So, using their logic, and if one was to be consistent, we would need to understand under what circumstances would those believers who go to heaven not enjoy heaven any longer? In the same vein, those who are sent to hellfire under what circumstances would they leave?
Allah (swt) could have removed the “unless your Lord may will otherwise” statement. That would have given the proponents the same weight as that verse. Yet, they would still need to contend with the numerous verses in the Qur’an in which Allah (swt) clearly indicated his will regarding those in hellfire.
“While the wicked will be in Hell. They will roast on the Day of Judgment. And they will never be absent from it.” (Qur’an 82: 14-16)
Point 5.
Lastly, on that text above. It would not indicate who would leave the hell fire.
Remember, there is a belief among Sunni Muslims that believers can enter the hellfire and then be taken out.
They cannot bring a single verse of the Qur’an to substantiate this. So if we are to use the logic of those who believe that hellfire is not eternal for its inhabitants (contrary to what Allah clearly says), it would mean that the polytheist, mushrik, anyone will eventually leave hell.
For us the matter is clear, crystal clear.
The hellfire is eternal for who ever enters it.
Our creed is taken from clear verses and not verses subject to multiple interpretations.
Objections are based upon interpretations or emotive in nature.
There is not a single verse anywhere in the Qur’an that believers (mumin) enter the hellfire.
There is not a single verse anywhere in the Qur’an that the ungrateful (kafir) enter heaven.
The Qur’an has to be in harmony with all its verses.
The next text that was discussed in that forum actually works against them.
“To those who reject Our Signs and treat them with arrogance, no opening will there be of the gates of Heaven, nor will they enter the Garden, until the camel can pass through the eye of the needle: such is Our reward for those in sin.” (Qur’an 7:40)
In the Tafsir attributed to Ibn Abbas (ra) Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs it says:
(Lo! they who deny Our revelations) Muhammed (pbuh) and the Qur’an (and scorn them) scorn believing in them, (for them the gates of Heaven will not be opened) to receive their works or souls (nor will they enter the Garden until the camel goes through the needle’s eye) they will not enter Paradise just as a camel cannot pass through the eye of a needle; it is also said that this means: they will not enter Paradise until a rope goes through a needle’s eye. (Thus do We requite the guilty) the idolaters.”
Even our teacher, Shaykh Hilal Al Wardi (hafidulah), favours the understanding of rope instead of camel.
Even then, as the Shaykh says, it means a big rope and not the thin thread that easily passes through the eye of the needle. The big rope is impossible.
Let us follow through logically.
ALL SUNNI Muslims believe that, at the very least, the unbelievers will go to hellfire. So, if the above verse is to be understood as something possible, a rope that can go through the eye of a needle, then no one will go to hellfire at all!
Now we know that this verse is clear. Allah (swt) has made it clear when he states: “Surely your Lord does whatsoever He wills.” That Allah (swt) has not willed for these people anything other than for them to remain in hellfire.
We know that Allah’s (swt) promise and statements are true.
“But the ones who believe and do righteous deeds – We will admit them to gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. It is the promise of Allah , which is truth, and who is more truthful than Allah in statement.” (Qur’an 4:122)
The only other possible straw for these people to clutch is the evil and heinous position that Allah (swt) can lie. So then when Allah (swt) says:
“While the wicked will be in Hell. They will roast on the Day of Judgment. And they will never be absent from it.” (Qur’an 82: 14-16)
or
“To those who reject Our Signs and treat them with arrogance, no opening will there be of the gates of Heaven, nor will they enter the Garden, until the camel can pass through the eye of the needle: such is Our reward for those in sin.” (Qur’an 7:40)
We have refuted that vile and godless position here:
“And they say, “Never will the Fire touch us, except for a few days.” Say, “Have you taken a covenant with Allah? For Allah will never break His covenant. Or do you say about Allah that which you do not know?” Yes, whoever earns evil and his sin has encompassed him – those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally.” (Qur’an 2:80-81)
﷽
Every now and again there is someone who stops by this blog/website and leaves an amazing comment. Something that is so eye-opening and poignant that it deserves not to be tucked away in the comment section but broadcast as far as Allah (swt) allows the knowledge to transmit.
“By the logic of those who argue that sinful believers who earned Jahannam will eventually go to paradise, Iblis himself would eventually enter Jannah because of his “righteous deeds” before he disobeyed Allah. We know, according to the Quran, he had the rank of the angels.”
“But the undeniable fact that Allah cursed Iblis to Jahannam over ONE sin, not prostrating to a creation. Allah commanded you to prostrate too. That is more than enough evidence that just because you believe doesn’t mean you will enter Jannah.”
“Iblis NEVER denied that Allah was his lord. Rather, he became arrogant and disobeyed the command of Allah. It seems this sin in and of itself is far more damning than a disbeliever not believing. It’s because Iblis KNEW about Allah’s power, yet he still disobeyed.”
“Even in Iblis’s khutbah to the companions of the fire, Iblis denies the association of him as a partner to Allah, and he affirms that Allah promised them the truth, and he promised them but betrayed them.”
“Anyone who accepts the notion that Jahannam is temporary for ANYONE without explicit proof is only responding to shaytan. Allah promises eternal bliss or eternal torment. Shaytan promises delusion.”
“I pray more Muslims see and understand the severity of this topic.”
What more can be said except Amin! Very well said, Zheyn!
Fore more on this topic you may wish to read the following:
“And of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil deeds until death faces one of them and he says: “Now I repent;” nor of those who die while they are ungrateful (kuffarun). For them, We have prepared a painful torment.” (Qur’an 4:18)
“IF (but) eschew the evilest of the things which you are forbidden to do, We shall expel out of (Saiyiatikum) YOU ALL THE EVIL IN YOU, and admit you to a gate of great honor.” –(Qur’an 4:31)
﷽
We can establish two quick points from the very beginning.
1. There is not a verse in the entirety of the Qur’an that gives a single example of a believer (mumin) entering hellfire.
2. There is not a verse in the entirety of the Qur’an that gives a single example of a kafir (ingrate) entering paradise.
“O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah with the care which is due to Him, and do not die unless you are Muslims.” (Qur’an 3:102)
“And return in repentance to your Lord and submit to Him before the punishment comes upon you; then you will not be helped.” (Qur’an 39:54)
What should be important for us it is not important if our school is right or wrong on the matter.
What is important for us is that we are following the clear evidence as given by the Qur’an and the agreed-upon traditions of the Blessed Messenger (saw)- Al-Sunnah.
The only reason the title is put as such is to make a distinction between what we believe to be the truth of the matter. Other schools have their reasons and justifications.
It is important to understand how we understand the word ‘Muslim’ and the word ‘kufr’ and what they mean based on the agreed-upon sources.
There are states or conditions that we are born into that we can lose and those states or conditions that we cannot lose. For example, if you are born a man or a woman for the rest of your life you will be a man or a woman. (though in this day and age some may even scoff at this reasoning!)
There is one’s ethnic group to which you belong that you are born with. If one is born an Arab they will die as an Arab.
So your gender, your ethnicity you are born as such and die as such.
Now a status can change. You could go from being single to married. You could go from being married to single. You could begin a career as a lawyer and die as a farmer.
So this is why it is important to understand the word ‘Muslim’ as-a state of being.
You can be Muslim and you can lose your faith in Islam. One of the most obvious examples of this without resorting to proof text is that if a Muslim chooses to leave Islam for another religion or no religion at all. This person has gone out of the Milla of Islam.
“Say, My Lord has guided me to a straight path, and to an upright religion, the religion (millata) of Abraham the upright, who was not of those who associate partners with Allah. Say. Surely my prayer and my sacrifice and my life and my death are (all) for Allah, the Lord of the worlds; No associate has He, and this am I commanded, and I am the first of those who submit (l-muslimina)” (Qur’an 6:161-163)
“And those who disbelieved said to their messengers: We will most certainly drive you forth from our land, or else you shall come back into our religion (millatina). So their Lord revealed to them: Most certainly We will destroy the unjust.” (Qur’an 14:13)
“Lo! those who believe, then disbelieve and then (again) believe, then disbelieve, and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them, nor will He guide them on the way. Give tidings to the hypocrites that for them there is a painful punishment.” (Qur’an 4:137-138)
These verses are very clear that one can leave the Milla of Islam and that one can be upon faith and than kufr and than return to faith and then return back to kufr and than continue on in their kufr.
You want to make sure that when you die you die upon the cycle of iman (belief). Allah (swt) has mentioned several times that we are not to die except in a state of Islam. We should die while upon belief and in a state of surrender, submission, to die as Muslims. Amin for all of us!
“And you do not take revenge on us except because we have believed in the communications of our Lord when they came to us! Our Lord: Pour out upon us patience and cause us to die insubmission (muslimina) ” (Qur’an 7:126)
“And the same did Ibrahim enjoin on his sons and (so did) Yaqoub. O, my sons! surely Allah has chosen for you (this) faith, therefore die not unless you are Muslims (muslimuna). (Qur’an 2:132)
“O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah with the care which is due to Him, and do not die unless you are Muslims.” (Qur’an 3:102)
So there are two points to be taken from the above text
We want to die in a state of surrender in a state of submission. For these commands to be there means it is possible for one not to die in a state of surrender and submission. We seek protection with Allah (swt) from that-for all of us!
We want to die while having belief/ faith in our hearts. We make supplication that this happens for all of us!
Notice that one of the three verses quoted above admonishes the following:
“Pour out upon us patience.” – In other words, grant us patience in doing what we need to do. & “be careful of (your duty to) Allah with the care which is due to Him.”
So please understand that the word Muslim means action. It is more an adjective that describes a state of being rather than a noun -regardless of anything one says or does.
Muslims are not like our gender or ethnicity. Being in a state of Islam is not something that stays with us no matter what we do. So it is something we must be careful to guard.
Based upon the Qur’an and Sunnah have two types of kafir.
All mushriks (those who associate partners with Allah) are kafir.
However, not all kafir are mushriks.
An example of the first point. Mushrik are kafirs.
“Certainly they are ungrateful (KAFARA)who say: Surely, Allah– He is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then could control anything as against Allah when He wished to destroy the Messiah son of Mary and his mother and all those on the earth? And Allah’s is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them; He creates what He pleases; and Allah has power over all things,” (Qur’an 5:17)
An example of the second point. Not all kafirs are Mushriks.
” And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the disbelievers (l-kāfirūna).” (Qur’an 5:44)
While the immediate context is a reference to the Jews, it would be a strange thing to say that Jews who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are kafir while Muslims get a free pass.
“Now, surely, sincere obedience is due to Allah (alone) and as for those who take awliyaa besides Him, saying, We do not serve them save that they may make us nearer to Allah, surely Allah will judge between them in that in which they differ; surely Allah does not guide him aright who is a liar, ungrateful(kaffarun) (Qur’an 39:3)
So what or how do we understand the word kufr?
Some want to make the word kufr as that which brings one out of Islam. Often you may see in their books and translations of the Qur’an that the various iterations of the word kufr or kafir will be translated into English as: ‘infidel’ or ‘disbeliever’ or ‘nonbeliever’ or ‘unbeliever’.
However, we want to look at how Allah (swt) the lord of all the worlds uses the word and its different forms throughout the revelation that He (swt) has given to us.
“Know that this world’s life is a sport and play and gaiety and boasting among yourselves, and a vying in the multiplication of wealth and children, like the rain, whose causing the vegetation to grow, pleases the tillers (al-kuffara), then it withers away so that you will see it become yellow, then it becomes dried up and broken down, and in the hereafter is a severe chastisement and (also) forgiveness from Allah and (His) pleasure, and this world’s life is naught but means of deception.” (Qur’an 57:20)
Maa sha Allah! This verse is very powerful. It also has a double meaning on the word kuffar. You can see that people in this life are all about hedonism and narcissism, boasting, and competition. Yet these people are ungrateful. They are compared to tillers who cover the earth. They are happy with their efforts.
Yet, as Allah (swt) mentions that the produce itself becomes nothing. That the life of this world is but means of deception. The produce becomes nothing, we see our youth give way to the challenges of old age. Even the wealth and children disperse. How many families fight over wealth and inheritance? How many children, in turn, are ungrateful to their parents for the sacrifices they made to give them a better lifestyle?
So much can be said about this amazing verse! Subhan’Allah.
“And when your Lord made it known: If you are grateful (shakartum), I would certainly give to you more, and if you are ungrateful (kafartum) , then My torment will be severe.“ (Qur’an 14:7)
So here Allah (swt) contrasted gratefulness with kafar (ungrateful). He also again warned us that His ‘torment will be severe‘ for those who are ungrateful. Note in the above verse one is either grateful or ungrateful. There is no in between. It is akin to a light switch what is the position between on/off?
“How is it you are ungrateful (takfurūna) to Allah? You had been lifeless, then, He gave you life. again, He will cause you to die. Again, He will give you life. And, again, you are returned to Him.” (Qur’an 2:28)
“So when they ride in the ships they call upon Allah, being sincerely obedient to Him, but when He brings them safely to the land, lo! they associate others (yush’rikūna) with Him; being ungrateful (liyakfuru) for what We gave them. So let them take joy for soon they will know!” (Qur’an 29:65-66)
So with all these verses in mind, it should be known that in the Ibadi school we understand Kufr as a denial of truth and ingratitude-either by one’s actions or inaction.
So the second type as mentioned above is kufr ni’mah. So this kufr-ni’mah is when any of us as Muslims commit major sins -persist in those sins and do not repent.
So those Muslims are kafir ni’mah. Ungrateful to Allah (swt) for the overwhelming and manifest blessings that He (swt) has given to them. They show this by their actions or inaction.
Our view is that any Muslim who does this and does not repent before death reaches/him or her will be in eternal hellfire.
So to be clear this is our position. In this life, there are three groups.
There are the Mushrik -those who are outside of Islam. Kufr Ash-Shirk
There are the Mumin (those are the believers) -They are part of the millat of Islam.
There are those who are kafir ni’mah (nifaq).- They are part of the millat of Islam. They share the beliefs of the Muslims. The share with those outside of Islam in kufr.
The one in kafir ni’mah he/she shares with the Mushrik in kufr -not of associating partners with Allah(swt) but in covering up the truth and/or being ungrateful to Allah(swt).
The one in kafir ni’mah he/she shares with the Muslims, thee beliefs of Islam. They are part of the Millat of Islam. Yet, they are Muslim by their tongues and the affirmation of the people. But if they are truly people of wara, and taqwa and emaan they will rush to ask forgiveness from their Lord.
Some people may be familiar with the term:
“The difference between us and the Kharijis is that they oppose us only in that they judge of every punishable act of kufr entailing expulsion from the millah.”-Shaykh Ahmed b. Hamad al-Khalili
As regards the afterlife we believe there are two types of categories and two abodes and the inhabitants of one do not enter the abode of the other.
The two categories are:
One is a destination for the kufar
One is a destination for the mumin.
The two destinations are:
The paradise and the believers do not come out from it. There is no verse in the Qur’an that paradise is for the kafir.
The hellfire and no one comes out from it. There is no verse in the Qur’an that hellfire is for the mumin.
The following three ahadith are something to ponder.
Jabir ibn ‘Abd-Allah reported: The Prophet, (saw) said, “Verily between a man and shirk and kufr there stands his neglect of the prayer.”
“I heard the Messenger of Allah ( saw) ‘The covenant that distinguishes between us and them is the prayer, and whoever neglects it has disbelieved (become a kafir).’”
Abdullah bin Buraidah narrated that his father said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: The covenant that distinguishes between us and them is the prayer; so whoever neglects it, has become a kafir (committed kufr).”
When a person willfully, abandons the prayer he/she/ become a kafir.
They are in a state of Kufr.
The type of kufr is called: “kufr ni’mah” ungratefulness to Allah (swt), for his many blessings by covering or hiding the reality of what Allah (swt) has commanded and prohibited and enjoined upon us.
Muslims who do major sins and persist in this without tauba are in a state of “kufr ni’mah” -they are still part of the Milla of Islam, their children inherit from them. However, if these people die in such a state, without making repentance the position of the Qur’an is clear. That person will go to hell fire-where they will neither reprieve nor escape.
“And of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil deeds until death faces one of them and he says: “Now I repent;” nor of those who die while they are ungrateful (kuffarun). For them, We have prepared a painful torment.” (Qur’an 4:18)
This verse is very clear.
Repentance is no use who continue to do evil deeds upon until death faces them (which could be at any moment) mind you. So it is risky to delay repentance and also shows a type of satisfaction with the sin.
Those who die while they are in a state of ungratefulness (kuffarun).
A painful punishment is prepared for such.
May Allah (swt) protect you and me and all of us!
“Surely as for those whom the angels cause to die while they are unjust to their souls, they shall say: In what state were you? They shall say: We were weak in the earth. They shall say: Was not Allah’s earth spacious so that you should have migrated therein? So those it is whose abode is hell, and it is an evil destination.” (Qur’an 4:99)
“The repentance accepted by Allah is only for those who do wrong in ignorance or carelessness and then repent soon after. It is those to whom Allah will turn in forgiveness, and Allah is ever Knowing and Wise..” (Qur’an 4:17)
So notice that it says even for people who do sins out of ignorance or carelessness that they should repent “soon after” How much more for those who do the major evil sins?
Now, this doesn’t mean if you did something out of ignorance or carelessness that you will be punished. Allah (swt) is merciful and does not want to punish someone for carelessness or slight acts of negligence.
What this verse is stating is that when it now becomes clear to you that what you were doing out of ignorance or carelessness is now made clear that you should repent from it immediately.
“IF (but) eschew the evilest of the things which you are forbidden to do, We shall expel out of (Saiyiatikum) YOU ALL THE EVIL IN YOU, and admit you to a gate of great honor.” -(Qur’an 4:31)
This verse is conditional. If we do our level best to avoid the major sins than Allah (swt) will remove from us the lesser sins. Allah (swt) forgives sins because He is al-ʿAfūw & al-Ghafūr
For more on the above verse please read our article here:
“It is right to hope that Allah will pardon them. For Allah is The one who Effaces, The Ever Forgiving..” (Qur’an 4:99)
Even with this in mind, we should do our level best to avoid small sins. We should never despair of the Mercy of Allah (swt) nor should we take for granted the Mercy of Allah (swt). That is the point is that by taking for granted the Mercy of Allah (swt) is in and of itself ingratitude.
As regards the majority of Muslims supposedly not praying or keeping their duty to Allah (swt) that is not your problem nor mine. We love them and hope they quickly amend their ways. Our duty is to save ourselves and our family from the fire whose fuel is men and jinn, whose fuel is men and stones.
So what does taubah mean?
It means to return or to turn.
Return or turn to whom?
Why would you need to return or turn if you are already in a state of surrender?
The matter of whether or not hell is eternal.
This is another reason why I feel the Muslim community is in the state that it is in. Think about it. The majority Muslim position is telling everyone that:
“Don’t worry Allah will put you in hell for a while, and then you will come out of it.” “Don’t worry you will only be in hell for 257 million years and then you can come out of it!“
May Allah (swt) protect us from perverse doctrines!
As if hell were a light matter! Not only that but they teach that hellfire is not eternal for the Muslim who commits major sins and does not repent!
Now let me ask you, dear readers. What actually is a Muslim?
What do you think should be the case for the Muslim who says:
“I know killing people is wrong but I’ll do it anyway.” “I know drinking alcohol is forbidden, and extramarital affairs are wrong but I’ll do them anyway”
“O you who have believed, fear Allah and give up what remains of interest if you should be believers. And if you do not, then be informed of war against you from Allah and His Messenger. But if you repent, you may have your principal – thus you do no wrong, nor are you wronged.” (Qur’an 2:278-279)
Can you imagine the condition of such a person? A person who says:
“I know that usury is forbidden, and I am in a state of war with Allah and His Messenger and I know that it is wrong, but I will do it anyway.” ?!?
So is simple lip service and acknowledging that it’s a sin and yet continuing to revel in it the hallmark of a Muslim? What is this based on?
Then you have to wonder about the moral decay in the Muslim community. Even though we could die at any moment, the personal reasons, “I can do this and Allah (swt) will just forgive me. Worst-case scenario I’ll go to hell for a while be purified and then released into heaven.” Authubillah min dhalik!
But a Muslim who neglect the prayers from simple laziness or no desire, you have to ask yourself what actually is a Muslim?
What is so hard about doing taubah?
Look at all the places it is mentioned in the Qur’an.
If you think about the major sins they are not things that are altogether to difficult to avoid.
Like do you personally find it difficult not to kill people?
Do you have some overwhelming desire to worship idols and associate partners with Allah (swt)?
Do you feel it’s absolutely necessary to cheat on your husband/wife when divorce is open to you?
The prayer takes discipline, but at the end of the day, it’s roughly 5 minutes (25 minutes) out of a 24 hour period.
You can perform it sitting down, lying on your side, you can combine prayers when traveling, shorten it during the conflict, and so forth.
Look at this hadith.
On the authority of Anas (ra), who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: Allah the Almighty said: O son of Adam, so long as you call upon Me and ask Me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you, O Son of Adam were you to come to Me with sins nearly as great as the Earth and were you then to face Me, ascribing no partner to Me, I would bring you forgiveness nearly as great as it.”
“He said: “O my people! why do you seek to hasten on the evil before the good? Why do you not ask forgiveness of Allah so that you may be dealt with mercifully? (Qur’an 27:46)
You really have to be a person actively fleeing from the mercy of Allah, an individual actively fleeing from Allah’s forgiveness and mercy to end up in hell. You actively have to want to participate in that end. You do so by continuing to disobey Allah (swt) and not seeking forgiveness, and not wanting transformation in your life. May Allah suffice us!
“The day when neither wealth nor sons shall profit except for him who comes to Allah with a pure heart.” (Qur’an 26:88-89)
“Nay! But on their hearts is the Ran (covering of sins and evil deeds) which they used to earn.’” (Qur’an 83:14)
Can a heart that is filled with ingratitude and hypocrisy be said to be a pure heart?
Look at what the great Shaykh and teacher of spirituality, Imam Al Ghazali has quoted:
“The Messenger of Allah “Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him,” said: “There are four kinds of hearts: a heart which is stripped clean in which a lamp shines and this is the believer’s heart; a heart which is black and upside down, and it is the unbeliever’s heart; a hardened heart bound n its sheath of evil, and it is the heart of the hypocrite; and a broad heart in which there is both belief and hypocrisy. Its belief is like green herbage which pure water causes to abound, and its hypocrisy is like an ulcer which purulent matter and pus cause to spread. This heart is judged to belong to whichever of the two prevails over the other.” This heart is judged to belong to whichever of the two prevails over the other.”
Indeed, the hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire – and never will you find for them a helper – Except for those who repent, correct themselves, hold fast to Allah, and are sincere in their religion for Allah, for those will be with the believers. And Allah is going to give the believers a great reward. Why should Allah punish you if you are grateful and believe? And ever is Allah Appreciative and Knowing.” (Qur’an 4:145-147)
“Allah does not charge a soul except with that within its capacity. It will have the consequence of what good it has gained, and it will bear the consequence of what evil it has earned. “Our Lord, do not impose blame upon us if we have forgotten or erred. Our Lord, and lay not upon us a burden like that which You laid upon those before us. Our Lord, and burden us not with that which we have no ability to bear. And pardon us, and forgive us, and have mercy upon us. You are our protector, so give us victory over the ungrateful (l-kafirina) people.” (Qur’an 2:286)
“O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah with the care which is due to Him, and do not die unless you are Muslims.” (Qur’an 3:102)
“And return [in repentance] to your Lord and submit to Him before the punishment comes upon you; then you will not be helped.” (Qur’an 39:54)
Oh Muslims die in a state of surrender to Allah (swt) and not in a state of rebellion to Allah (swt)
There is not a verse in the entirety of the Qur’an that gives a single example of a kafir (ingrate) entering paradise.
One final note. Anyone who in a state of kufr will go to hell. Hell is not for the mumin.
So how to avoid this fate?
Avoid major sins. If you find that you fall short, repent immediately! Return to Allah (swt).
Allah is our success!
You may also be interested in the following articles:
Prima Quran 