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:
“And whoever kills a believer intentionally, their reward will be Hell—where they will stay indefinitely.Allah will be displeased with them, condemn them, and will prepare for them a tremendous punishment.” (Qur’an 4:93)
﷽
The following article is a translation of the wonderful presentation by the respected Shaykh
In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.
Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and prayers and peace be upon the Seal of the Prophets and Messengers, our master Muhammed, and upon his family and his righteous, guided companions. To proceed:
Peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you.
Introduction: The Allegations Answered Once and For All.
My brothers, in this article we continue responding to a persistent allegation—that the Ibadis declare the Companions to be disbelievers, that we excommunicate them from Islam. This accusation is repeated endlessly by those who either misunderstand our creed or deliberately misrepresent it.
As we have said before, this attack against the Ibadis is the result of these people’s ignorance regarding the principle of loyalty and disavowal (al-walāyah wa’l-barā’ah) among the Ibadis. Likewise, these people are trying to conceal what they themselves call the faults of some of the Companions—namely, the events that occurred during the civil strife (fitnah). These events are what led those scholars to declare disavowal from some of the Companions.
These people are not only ignorant of the principle of loyalty and disavowal, but they are also trying to conceal and avoid discussing these events.
When these people throw this accusation at the Ibadis, they simply say directly: “The Ibadis declare the Companions disbelievers,” without discussing the reasons. There are reasons that led those scholars to declare disavowal regarding those Companions.
What Our Opponents Say: Documenting the Accusation
Let us document exactly what our opponents claim. Listen carefully to their own words:
“Look, regardless of my disagreement with them, they declare ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān to be a disbeliever, and they declare ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, and Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī, and Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī, and a group of the Prophet’s Companions to be disbelievers. Yet despite that, they do not openly state it. Rather, you find this in their major books. You find it in their books. They also have an element of taqiyyah (dissimulation). Even so, I do not know whether this expression will be understood properly or not, but I respect in them the absence of sectarianism. This is their creed: they declare the Prophet’s Companions disbelievers. This is their creed: they declare the Prophet’s Companions disbelievers. Yes, we declare Muʿāwiyah a disbeliever, but we still narrate from him. We declare Marwān a disbeliever, but we still narrate from him. We declare ʿUthmān a disbeliever, but we still narrate from him. We declare ʿAlī and al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn disbelievers, but we still narrate from al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn. This is the Ibadi belief.”
Another says:
“Therefore we are not surprised by this stance, for the position of the early Ibadis regarding the Companions—especially the two caliphs—is contrary to the methodology of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamāʿah. It included criticism, takfīr, and false disavowal from the best of this nation. As for the other two Rightly Guided Caliphs, ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān and ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, may Allah be pleased with them, the Khawārij, including the Ibadis, remained deeply astray concerning them, attributing to them things from which Allah declared them innocent, and speaking grievously against them.”
And another:
“They called themselves the people of truth and uprightness, but they are the people of falsehood and misguidance. Hatred toward Ahl al-Sunnah. Let me add even more: they declare ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib and ʿUthmān disbelievers—and also al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, of course. As for Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān, he exited Islam through its widest gates.”
As you have heard, these people claim that the Ibadis declare ʿUthmān, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, al-Ḥasan, al-Ḥusayn, and a group of the Prophet’s Companions to be disbelievers. Then they say that the Ibadis do not openly state this and that they practice a kind of taqiyyah. They say this is our creed.
The Reality: No Taqiyyah, No Doctrine of Takfīr
The reality is that this is not our creed, nor is there any taqiyyah. Rather, it is their ignorance. They are ignorant of the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension (wuqūf) among the Ibadis.
One of these opponents commented on an interview with one of our shaykhs. The interviewer asked the shaykh about Sayyidunā Abū Bakr and Sayyidunā ʿUmar, then afterwards about Sayyidunā ʿUthmān. They claim that he stuttered. The reality is that the shaykh did not stutter. Rather, he was avoiding reopening the fitnah and the events that occurred among the Companions. He did not want to stir up these matters, so he avoided them. Yet they claim he hesitated and faltered.
The shaykh did not hesitate or stutter. He answered. The problem is not with the shaykh—the problem is with them. They are ignorant of the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension. Anyone who understands this doctrine would know that the shaykh did answer the question.
The shaykh did not want to bring out what is found in their own books regarding the events that occurred among the Companions. He was avoiding this issue.
The shaykh said—according to the meaning of his words—that there were those who had one opinion and others who had another opinion. This is the reality. The issue returns to the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension. There are people with one opinion and others with another. That is the answer. The shaykh cannot specify which of those opinions is correct because the matter returns to our doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension.
They want the shaykh simply to say: “Disbeliever” or “not a disbeliever.” But the matter is not that simple. This black-and-white approach belongs to them. The shaykh is not obligated to adopt their methodology, nor are the Ibadis obligated to adopt their methodology in these issues. We Ibadis have our own methodology and doctrine: the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension.
Now, these people claim that we declare ʿUthmān, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, al-Ḥasan, al-Ḥusayn, and a group of the Prophet’s Companions to be disbelievers. Then they say we do not openly state it and that we practice taqiyyah. Then they say this is the creed of the Ibadis.
The reality is that there is neither taqiyyah nor a doctrine of declaring the Companions disbelievers. Declaring the Companions disbelievers is not a doctrine among the Ibadis. We do not have a chapter in our creed titled: “The Ibadi doctrine of declaring the Companions disbelievers.” This is their ignorance.
If we focus on their words and these responses and clips they produced, we find them constantly repeating the term takfīr, the term kufr. They say: “They declared disbelief,”“acts of disbelief,”“so-and-so is a disbeliever.”
One of them even distorted the shaykh’s words in that interview, lied, and played with expressions. Anyone who watches the interview and his commentary will find that he distorted the shaykh’s words and attributed to him statements he never made. The shaykh never uttered the term takfīr. Yet this man attributes to the Ibadis things they never said.
Did the Ibadis Invent the Term Kufr?
Now, does this term—takfīr—have any basis? Did the Ibadis invent it out of thin air, as they claim, or does it have a basis in religion?
Let us establish this. Let us speak and cite from the books of these people themselves. We will not use Ibadi sources. Rather, we will prove everything we say from the sources of these people.
The Prophetic Evidence
In Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, the most authentic book after the Qur’an according to Ahl al-Sunnah, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
“Do not revert after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.”
This is another ḥadīth proving the usage of the term kufr for actions committed by Muslims against other Muslims.
What Sunni Scholars Say About this Kufr
Now let us see what these people’s own scholars say regarding these ḥadīths and the term kufr.
Muhammed ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn
Muhammed ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn, one of the most revered contemporary Sunni scholars, says in his commentary on Riyāḍ al-Ṣāliḥīn, volume 4, page 70:
“Then the Prophet ﷺ said: ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.’ … This indicates that believers fighting one another is kufr.”
Notice: He says “believers fighting one another is kufr.” He does not say the fighters have left Islam. He affirms they are believers, yet their fighting is kufr.
However, you know what has happened to soften this in some English translations? They translate it as: “This indicates that believers fighting one constitutes some disbelief.”
In Al-Thamar al-Mustatāb fī Fiqh al-Sunnah wa al-Kitāb, page 53, al-Albānī says:
“Know that many ḥadīths have come attributing kufr to those who commit major sins … among them: ‘Insulting a Muslim is wickedness and fighting him is kufr’… and ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.’ All these ḥadīths are authentic. So if we know that kufr has levels (darajāt), and that some forms do not eternally condemn a person to Hell, then there is no need for reinterpretation.”
Al-Albānī explicitly affirms three critical points:
Kufr has levels (darajāt).
Some forms of kufr do not eternally condemn a person to Hell.
Therefore, there is no need to reinterpret these ḥadīths away—they mean what they say, but kufr does not always mean apostasy.
“Based on this principle, a person may possess a branch of disbelief while also possessing faith. Thus the Prophet ﷺ named many sins as kufr, though the person committing them may still have more than an atom’s weight of faith and therefore not remain eternally in Hell. Such as his statement: ‘Insulting a Muslim is wickedness and fighting him is kufr,’ and ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.’ This is widespread from the Prophet ﷺ in authentic narrations.”
Then he says:
“He called those who strike one another’s necks unjustly ‘disbelievers.’”
And he says this is “kufr less than kufr,” as some Companions said.
This is extraordinary. Ibn Taymiyyah—the scholar revered by many of our opponents—explicitly affirms:
A person can have “a branch of disbelief” while still possessing faith.
The Prophet called certain sins kufr.
This kufr does not necessarily mean eternal damnation.
Some Companions themselves called this “kufr less than kufr.”
“If hatred is for worldly reasons only, then this is lesser disbelief and does not reach major disbelief. Hence the Prophet ﷺ said: ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.’”
Then on page 852 he says:
“The fact that some Companions fought others involves entering into traits of disbelief … therefore he said: ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers.’”
He then says this disbelief may be lesser or greater depending on the nature of the hatred.
Sources: (
Ibn Taymiyyah on the Authenticity of These Ḥadīths
In Minhāj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah, volume 4, pages 499–500, Ibn Taymiyyah is responding to the Rāfiḍah (Shīʿa). In this section he imagines an argument from the Nawāṣib against the Rāfiḍah. He says:
“If the Nawāṣib said to you Rāfiḍah: ‘ʿAlī permitted the blood of Muslims and fought them without the command of Allah and His Messenger, merely for leadership,’ and then cited the Prophet’s words ‘Fighting him is kufr’ and ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another,’ then ʿAlī would thereby be a disbeliever…”
Then Ibn Taymiyyah says:
“Your argument, O Rāfiḍah, would not be stronger than theirs, because the ḥadīths they used are authentic.”
Ibn Taymiyyah affirms that these ḥadīths containing the term kufr are authentic. He does not deny their application to Muslims who fight Muslims.
In his book on trustworthy narrators, al-Dhahabī says on page 23:
“If we opened this door for ourselves, many Companions, Followers, and imams would enter into it. Some Companions declared others disbelievers based on interpretation.”
Al-Dhahabī affirms takfīr occurring among the Companions themselves—based on interpretive ijtihād, not because the target of takfīr had actually left Islam.
Imam al-Nawawī said in his commentary on Sahih Muslim: “To insult a Muslim without right is forbidden by the consensus of the Ummah, and the one who does it is a fāsiq (morally corrupt), as the Prophet (peace be upon him) informed. As for fighting him without right, it does not constitute kufr that expels one from the religion according to Ahl al-Haqq, unless one deems it lawful. Now that this is established, there are several interpretations of the hadith: First — it applies to the one who deems such acts lawful. Second — it is meant as ingratitude for blessings and brotherhood in Islam, not as disbelief in Allah. Third — it leads to disbelief due to its evil consequences. Fourth — it resembles the actions of disbelievers.”
First — it applies to the one who deems such acts lawful.
Their interpretation is if you kill a fellow a Muslim but you don’t believe that it is lawful to do so then it is not kufr.
We wonder if the companions who killed each other thought that what they were doing was lawful or unlawful?
If it was unlawful then they participated in the unlawful in masse.
Second — it is meant as ingratitude for blessings and brotherhood in Islam, not as disbelief in Allah. Hence, kufr ni’ama. Welcome to the Ibadi view.
Third — it leads to disbelief due to its evil consequences. Fourth — it resembles the actions of disbelievers.
Summary of Sunni Scholarly Consensus on the above matter.
Scholar
Affirmation
Ibn Taymiyyah
Kufr has levels; “kufr less than kufr” exists; a person can have a branch of kufr while still having faith.
Al-Dhahabī
Some Companions declared other Companions disbelievers based on interpretation (ta’wīl).
Al-ʿUthaymīn
Believers fighting one another is kufr—but they remain believers.
Al-Albānī
Kufr has levels (darajāt); some forms do not eternally condemn to Hell.
Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh
Lesser disbelief exists and does not reach major disbelief.
al-Nawawī
Meant as ingratitude for blessings and brotherhood in Islam, not as disbelief in Allah
The Sunni Understanding of Qur’anic Reconciliation vindicates the Ibadis
Now we return to the Qur’anic verse that seals this matter.
The Sunnis translate the verse as:
“And if two groups of the believers fight each other…” (Qur’an 49:9)
Allah did not say: “If two groups, one of which has left Islam…” He said: “of the believers.”
Therefore:
Statement
Implication
Allah calls fighting groups believers
They have not left the millah of Islam.
The Prophet calls fighting a Muslim kufr
The act is kufr in the lesser sense.
Conclusion
Kufr in the ḥadīth and in Ibadi usage does not mean expulsion from Islam.
This term—kufr—was not invented by the Ibadis out of thin air or from their own pockets. These scholars did not invent it. Rather, this term is established and has a basis in the explicit words of the Prophet ﷺ and the explicit text of the Qur’an.
The Prophet said: “Insulting a Muslim is wickedness and fighting him is kufr.” And he also said: “Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.”
The question is: did the Companions strike one another’s necks? No rational person can deny that this happened during the fitnah.
The Ibadi Doctrinal Framework: Walāyah, Barā’ah, and Wuqūf
Now that we have established the legitimacy of the term kufr in its lesser sense, let us explain the actual Ibadi doctrine—the framework our opponents either do not understand or deliberately misrepresent.
The issues related to the stance on historical events (the Great Fitnah) are among the most intricate topics in Ibadi theology, and they have witnessed significant methodological development while preserving their theoretical foundations.
First: The Three Doctrinal Concepts
These concepts represent a “system of analogy” that defines a Muslim’s relationship with others based on behavior and actions:
Walāyah (Loyalty): This is love for the sake of Allah, and it is obligatory for every Muslim whose outward conduct is in accordance with Allah’s commands. It is of two types: general walāyah (for all believers) and specific walāyah (for those known for their righteousness).
Barā’ah (Disavowal): This is hatred for the sake of Allah, and it is obligatory for anyone who openly commits a major sin, persists in a wrong, or introduces something into the religion that contradicts its fundamental principles (from the perspective of the school of thought). It is not a “curse” or “insult,” but rather a severing of religious allegiance from the action or innovation.
Wuqūf (Suspension): This refers to refraining from judging someone’s loyalty or innocence due to unclear evidence, conflicting reports, or because the person was unaware of the events and not legally obligated to pass judgment on them.
A Detailed Overview of Positions Throughout the Ages
Prevailing Position: Innocence of the events and those responsible for them. Early Ibadis did not hold the Companions (as a whole) responsible for the fitnah in a way that condemned them.
Estimated Percentage: 95% innocence. The overwhelming majority of early Ibadi scholars maintained that the Companions (as a whole) were not to be held blameworthy for the civil strife.
Even if we granted a theoretical 5% Allowance for disavowal
The remaining 5% allows for the possibility that some Companions, as human beings, may have committed acts prior to the fitnah that deserved punishment under the Qur’an and Sunnah. This is not a blanket condemnation of any Companion, nor is it specific to the events of the fitnah. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that Companions—like all humans—were not infallible (ma’sūm) and could commit individual sins for which the Qur’an and Sunnah prescribe accountability. This is not unique to Ibadis; Sunni scholars also acknowledge that Companions were not infallible and could commit sins, though they are generally considered righteous overall.
Examples: What is mentioned in the letters of Imam Jābir ibn Zayd (although his letters are characterized by piety) and what biographers have reported about the position of the people of Nahrawān towards ʿUthmān (due to the issue of protected areas and positions) and towards ʿAlī (due to the arbitration).
Logic: The position was directly political and doctrinal. Early Ibadis considered certain actions during the fitnah to be innovations, but they did not translate that into condemning the Companions as individuals. Rather, their barā’ah (disavowal) was directed at the actions and innovations, not at the persons as disbelievers or as having left the millah of Islam.
Stage 2: Establishing and Remaining Silent (5th–13th centuries AH)
Prevailing Stance: Expressions of “remaining silent” began to appear explicitly.
Estimated Ratio: 50% disavowal (in educational texts) and 50% wuqūf (in practical application).
A well-known saying: Imam Abū Saʿīd al-Kadāmī (one of the leading scholars of the 4th century AH) said: “We do not disavow ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib or ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān unless we have definitive proof that necessitates it, and silence is safer.”
Logic: The principle of “scholarly integrity” began to emerge, whereby statements of disavowal were transmitted as part of the heritage, but remaining silent was practiced out of respect for the status of these Companions.
Contemporary Phase (14th century AH – Present Day)
Prevailing Stance: Remaining silent and accepting (the principle of good faith).
Shaykh Nūr al-Dīn al-Sālimī: Despite his adherence to the fundamentals, he opened the door to wuqūf for those who were unaware of the fitnah, saying: “You may abstain from judgment regarding the people of the qiblah, for Allah will not question you about what they did.”
His Eminence Shaykh Aḥmad bin Ḥamad al-Khalīlī (Grand Mufti of Oman): He always emphasizes the unity of the Ummah and purity of heart. In his lessons and writings, he prays for mercy upon all the Companions and affirms that historical differences should not divide Muslims today.
The Principle of Purity of Heart: This is the principle adopted by the Ibadi school today, meaning that the contemporary Muslim is not obligated to investigate the bloodshed of the Companions, and it is safer for him to meet Allah with a pure heart towards everyone.
Why Do Classical Texts Continue to Contain Statements of Disavowal?
The continued presence of these statements in books does not necessarily mean they are being implemented today. Rather, it stems from methodological reasons:
Scholarly Integrity: Ibadi scholars consider the books of the early scholars an inheritance that should not be censored or deleted. Instead, it should be transmitted as is, with explanations within its historical context.
Preserving Historical Memory: Transmitting these statements aims to explain why the Ibadis differed from others initially (the political and legal reasons for the revival), not to incite hatred.
Distinguishing Between “Statement” and “Religious Practice”: The statement of disavowal exists “intellectually” in the books as an interpretation by earlier scholars, but wuqūf and acceptance are what are practiced “religiously” and as acts of worship today.
Should One Take a Doctrinal Stance Regarding the People of Nahrawān?
This is a fundamental question within the school of thought, and the answer can be summarized as follows:
The Ibadi position on their predecessors: The Ibadis believe that the people of Nahrawān were “people of righteousness” and that their disavowal of ʿUthmān and ʿAlī was based on a legitimate interpretation of Islamic law, which they considered justified in their time, to protect the core of the faith (as they perceived it).
Are you obligated to disavow them as they did? No. The principle among the Ibadis is: “There is no blame on one who remains neutral.” A contemporary Muslim who refrains from judging ʿUthmān and ʿAlī, while simultaneously respecting the people of Nahrawān as scholars and predecessors, is not considered an “innovator” or “outside the school.”
Conclusion of the Doctrinal Section
There is no religious obligation within the Ibadi school that compels you to disavow any of the Companions today. The required doctrinal stance is loyalty to the believers and hatred of oppressors in general. However, regarding specific historical events, the best and safest course is to remain neutral. (Wuqūf)
Accordingly, the Ibadi approach today is one of unity, not division, whereby the Companions (including ʿUthmān and ʿAlī) are treated with respect as a general virtue, while the interpretations of the early scholars who took strong stances are also respected, and this is considered part of the history of scholarly interpretation that does not preclude present-day harmony.
Kufr in the Ibadi School Does Not Expel from the Millah
Let us state this as clearly as possible:
Kufr in the Ibadi school is not something that takes one out of the millah of Islam.
This is the fundamental distinction that our opponents either cannot grasp or deliberately conceal.
When early Ibadi scholars used the term kufr regarding certain actions during the fitnah, they did not mean:
That the person had left the millah of Islam.
That their shahādah was invalidated.
That they were forever condemned to Hell.
Rather, they meant precisely what Ibn Taymiyyah meant when he wrote “a person may possess a branch of disbelief while also possessing faith” and “kufr less than kufr.” They meant what al-Albānī meant when he wrote “kufr has levels, and some forms do not eternally condemn a person to Hell.”
They meant that the action—fighting a fellow Muslim unjustly, or introducing innovation into the religion—is an act of kufr in the lesser sense: a grave violation that necessitates barā’ah (disavowal) but not the complete negation of faith.
Even in how we understand the word كفر or kufr in Arabic. This ensures us that we have a creed that is based upon the Qur’an, the primary source of Islam, the revelation Allah sent to his Blessed Prophet (saw). Allah (swt) never defined كفر as exit from the religion of Islam. This is concept is theologically superimposed upon the word. The proof of this is evident. In light of the clear text from the Prophetic Sunnah, Sunni scholars have provided an array of understandings and levels concering the word.
Why the Accusation of Taqiyyah for the Ibadi Is False
Our opponents also claim that we, the Ibadis practice taqiyyah—that we conceal our “true” belief that the Companions are disbelievers.
This is false for several reasons:
There is no concealment. We are explaining our doctrine openly in this very article, citing our sources and demonstrating our distinctions.
Wuqūf is not taqiyyah.Taqiyyah is concealing one’s true belief out of fear of harm. Wuqūf is a principled theological position: suspending judgment when evidence is unclear or when the matter does not affect one’s own religious obligation.
The accusation is ironic. Our opponents accuse us of taqiyyah while ignoring that we openly state: “We do not declare the Companions disbelievers in the sense of expulsion from Islam.” What are we supposedly concealing?
The burden of proof is on them. They claim we secretly believe something. But they provide no evidence—only misinterpretation of early texts that they refuse to read in light of their own understanding of Qur’an (49:9) and the distinction between lesser and major kufr.
The Rhetorical Question Our Opponents Cannot Answer
Let us conclude with a question for those who accuse the Ibadis of excommunicating the Companions:
According to their own undersatnding of Qur’an 49:9, when two groups of believers fight each other, are they still believers or not?
They cannot say “no” without contradicting the Qur’an.
And according to your own ḥadīth in Bukhārī and Muslim, fighting a Muslim is kufr. So how do you reconcile the Qur’an calling fighting believers ‘believers’ and the ḥadīth calling fighting ‘kufr’?
The only possible reconciliation is that kufr here does not mean apostasy. It means a lesser kufr, a grave sin, an act of major transgression—but not expulsion from the millah of Islam.
That is exactly what we Ibadis have been saying all along.
This is not meant as a ‘gotcha’ for the Sunnis, but a call for sincere reflection, bridge-building, and moving forward as an Ummah
Final Summary
Accusation
Reality
“Ibadis declare Companions to be disbelievers (apostates).”
Ibadis use kufr in the lesser sense (kufr ni’ma), as affirmed by Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Albānī, al-ʿUthaymīn, and others.
“Ibadis declare companions to be mushrik (polytheist).”
Ibadis have not declared a single companion to be a mushrik.
“Ibadis practice taqiyyah to hide their true beliefs.”
There is no concealment. Wuqūf (suspension) is a principled theological position, not taqiyyah.
“Ibadis invented the term kufr for Muslims.”
The term comes from how Allah defined it in the Qur’an.
“Ibadis are Khawārij who excommunicate Muslims.”
Ibadis distinguish themselves from extremist Khawārij precisely by affirming that kufr does not always entail expulsion from the millah.
“Contemporary Ibadis still declare the Companions disbelievers.”
The contemporary Ibadi position is overwhelmingly wuqūf and acceptance, with scholars praying for mercy upon all Companions.
Conclusion and Call for Fairness
We Ibadis do not ask anyone to agree with our historical interpretations. We do not ask anyone to adopt our doctrine of barā’ah. What we ask for is fairness—that we be judged by what we actually believe, not by the distorted caricature our opponents present.
We ask that our accusers to read their own understasnding of Qur’an (49:9) and the authentic ḥadīth. We ask that they read their own scholars—Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Dhahabī, al-ʿUthaymīn, al-Albānī—who affirm the very distinctions we make..
We ask that they stop accusing us of taqiyyah when we are explaining our doctrine openly.
If they insist that our definition of kufr means apostasy, they bear the burden of proof is upon the accuser—not us.
“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)
“That is because Allah He is the Truth (Al Haqq) -the Only True God of all that exists, Who has no partners or rival, the ultimate reality, and what they (those who associate) invoke besides Him, it is Batil (falsehood) And verily, Allah He is the Highest, The Most Great.” (Qur’an 22:62)
“No! We hurl the Truth against Falsehood, and it crushes it. Behold, falsehood does perish! Woe to you for the false things you ascribe.” (Qur’an 21:18)
﷽
The Bible claims to be a repository of divine revelation delivered through prophets. Yet within its own pages lie passages that raise a devastating question: How can anyone know, with objective certainty, whether a prophet speaks for God or for a deceiving spirit?
Two passages—1 Kings 22 (the lying spirit sent to deceive Ahab’s prophets) and 2 Kings 3 (the Moabite king’s child sacrifice to Chemosh that apparently succeeded)—demonstrate that the Bible provides no reliable, objective criterion for distinguishing true prophecy from false. Consequently, confidence in the God of the Bible and the reliability of the prophetic tradition is not rationally justified.
The Lying Spirit of 1 Kings 22
In 1 Kings 22, King Ahab of Israel seeks prophetic guidance before attacking Ramoth-gilead. Four hundred prophets unanimously predict victory. King Jehoshaphat of Judah asks for another prophet. Micaiah son of Imlah is summoned. After initial sarcasm, Micaiah delivers a startling revelation:
“I saw the Lord seated on his throne, with the whole host of heaven standing to his right and to his left. The Lord asked: Who will deceive Ahab, so that he will go up and fall on Ramoth-gilead? And one said this, another that, until this spirit came forth and stood before the Lord, saying, ‘I will deceive him.’ The Lord asked: How? He answered, ‘I will go forth and become a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets.’ The Lord replied: You shall succeed in deceiving him. Go forth and do this. So now, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours; the Lord himself has decreed evil against you.” (1 Kings 22:19–23)
This Is A Huge Problem.
This passage establishes several disturbing facts:
The Lord initiates deception. He does not merely permit a lying spirit to act; he asks for volunteers to deceive Ahab.
The lying spirit acts with divine authorization. The Lord commands, “Go forth and do this.”
The 400 prophets are sincere but deceived. Nothing in the text suggests they are frauds. They experience genuine prophetic ecstasy. They believe they speak for God. They are wrong.
The deception works. Ahab hears the prophesied victory, believes it, goes to battle, and dies.
The Objective Criterion Problem
If a prophet can be sincerely inspired by a lying spirit sent by the Lord, then the prophet’s subjective experience of inspiration is worthless as a test of truth. The 400 prophets felt exactly as true prophets feel. They spoke with confidence. They may even have performed signs (Zedekiah’s iron horns in verse 11). Yet they were deceived.
This means that any prophet at any time could be in the same position. There is no internal marker—no distinctive feeling, no special certainty, no accompanying miracle—that guarantees the message comes from the Lord rather than from a divinely commissioned lying spirit.
Possible Counter-Arguments and Responses
These objections are usually the response of those Christians who believe in Glossolalia, or speaking in tongues. Often other Christians will ask them how do they (Pentacostal, Evangelical) know that they do not have a lying spirit? These interesting internal Christian debates have helped in what follows.
Counter-argument 1: The lying spirit was sent as judgment against Ahab because he had already rejected the truth. The 400 prophets were not typical prophets; they were court prophets who told Ahab what he wanted to hear.
Prima Qur’an Response: This does not solve the objective criterion problem. Even if the 400 prophets were corrupt, the text says the lying spirit entered their mouths. The deception was real. More importantly, how would an observer know, in advance, which prophets are corrupt and which are true? Ahab had no objective way to know that Micaiah was the true prophet and the 400 were deceived until after the battle—when Ahab was dead. The test of fulfillment (Deuteronomy 18:21–22) works only in hindsight.
Counter-argument 2: Deuteronomy 13 provides a test: even if a prophet’s sign comes true, if he leads people to other gods, he is false. The 400 prophets did not do that.
Prima Qur’an Response: Deuteronomy 13 is a necessary test, but not a sufficient one. It catches only prophets who explicitly advocate idolatry. What about prophets who speak in the name of the Lord but are deceived? What about prophets who give military or political advice that leads to disaster? The lying spirit speaks in the name of the Lord. The 400 prophets say, “The Lord will give it into the power of the king” (verse 6). They do not advocate other gods. Yet they are false. Deuteronomy 13 does not identify them.
Counter-argument 3: The test of fulfillment eventually caught the false prophets. Ahab died. Their prophecy failed. That is the objective criterion.
Prima Qur’an Response: This is true but useless for anyone who must make a decision before the event. Ahab needed to know beforethe battle whether to attack. The 400 prophets gave him confident assurance. Micaiah gave him a warning. Ahab chose the majority. He had no objective way to decide which group was telling the truth. The test of fulfillment only works after the fact—after lives have been lost. A decision-making criterion that only works retroactively is not a criterion for decision-making at all.
The God of Chemosh in 2 Kings 3
In 2 Kings 3, the Moabite king rebels against Israel. Jehoram of Israel, Jehoshaphat of Judah, and the king of Edom form a coalition to attack Moab from the south. They run out of water. The prophet Elisha is consulted. He prophesies:
“Thus says the Lord: Dig ditches in this wadi. For thus says the Lord: You will see neither wind nor rain, yet the wadi will fill with water, and you will drink—you, your cattle, and your pack animals. And this is easy in the Lord’s sight; he will also deliver Moab into your power. You will destroy every fortified city and every choice city, cut down every good tree, stop up all the springs, and ruin every fertile field with stones.” (2 Kings 3:16–19)
The next morning, water comes. The Moabites see the water red in the sunlight, mistake it for blood, assume the allied kings have turned on each other, and rush out to plunder. The Israelites rise up and defeat them, pursuing them into Moab.
Then the text continues:
“When the king of Moab saw that the battle was going against him, he took with him seven hundred swordsmen to break through to the king of Edom, but they failed. Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him, and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And great wrath came upon Israel, so they withdrew from him and returned to their own land.” (2 Kings 3:26–27)
Another Massive Problem.
The plain reading of the text is devastating for any claim that the Lord alone is God or that other gods have no real power:
Elisha, a true prophet of the Lord, prophesied total victory. He said Moab would be delivered into Israel’s power. He described complete destruction: every city destroyed, every tree cut down, every spring stopped.
The Moabite king offers his son to Chemosh. This is not a private ritual; it is a public act of desperate propitiation, performed on the wall for both armies to see.
Something happens. The text does not explain the mechanism, but the causal sequence is unmistakable: sacrifice —> great wrath —> Israel withdraws.
Israel does not achieve the prophesied victory. They do not destroy Moab’s cities. They do not cut down its trees. They withdraw. They go home.
The most natural reading is that Chemosh, the Moabite god, was propitiated by the child sacrifice and responded by protecting Moab and driving Israel away.
Score card: Chemosh 1 Yahweh 0.
People May Ask: Does This Mean Chemosh Exists and Has Power?
If the biblical text reports that a sacrifice to Chemosh produced a military victory against an army that had the blessing of the Lord (through Elisha), then one of three conclusions follows:
Chemosh is a real god with real power. The Lord is not the only God, or at least not the only effective God. The Bible contains henotheism (many gods, but Israel must worship only one) rather than monotheism (only one God exists).
The Lord caused the wrath to punish Israel for some unstated sin. But the text does not say this. Elisha’s prophecy was unconditional: “The Lord will deliver Moab into your power.” If the Lord then caused Israel’s defeat, Elisha was a false prophet by Deuteronomy 18’s test. That creates an even larger problem.
The “wrath” was psychological—Israelite morale collapsed at the horror of child sacrifice. But the text does not say that either. It says wrath came upon Israel (qetseph gadol ‘al Yisra’el). The same language is used elsewhere for divine wrath. And psychological collapse is still an effect caused by the sacrifice—an effect that a non-existent god could not produce.
Possible Counter-Arguments and Responses
We have not seen good objectives or responses to the above. However, Christian apologetic is often predictable. Here are some of their possible counters as well as our response.
Counter-argument 1: The withdrawal was temporary. The text does not say Moab won the war. It only says Israel withdrew from that particular siege. Moab remained a vassal or was later subdued.
Priama Qur’an response: This is special pleading. The text presents the withdrawal as a direct consequence of the wrath. Elisha’s prophecy promised total destruction of Moab’s cities. That did not happen. The text does not record any later Moabite subjugation in this campaign. The plain reading is that the sacrifice worked and Israel failed to achieve its objective.
Counter-argument 2: The “great wrath” was from the Lord against Moab, not against Israel. So the wrath came upon Moab, causing the Israelites to withdraw because Moab was now protected by divine wrath.
Prima Qur’an response: The wrath comes after the sacrifice. If the wrath is against Moab, why does Israel withdraw? Israel would press the attack if Moab were under divine wrath. The withdrawal makes sense only if the wrath is against Israel—or if the wrath is Chemosh’s wrath against Israel. The simplest reading remains the most natural: the sacrifice propitiated Chemosh, and Chemosh acted.
Counter-argument 3: Chemosh may have real power, but that power is demonic and subordinate to the Lord.
Prima Qur’an Response: This does not solve the problem; it relocates it. If Chemosh is a demon acting under the Lord’s permission, then the Lord permitted a demon to defeat his own prophet’s prophecy. That means the Lord allows his own true prophets to be publicly humiliated and his people to be defeated by demonic powers. On what basis could anyone then trust a prophetic word? The Lord might have authorized a lying spirit to deceive the prophet (as in 1 Kings 22) or authorized a demon to defeat the army (as in 2 Kings 3). There is no objective way to know.
Counter-argument 4: The story is not about Chemosh’s power but about the horror of child sacrifice. The Israelites withdrew because they were morally repulsed, not because Chemosh did anything.
Prima Qur’an Response: The text does not say this. It says “great wrath came upon Israel.” That is theological language. The author could have written “they were horrified” but did not. Moreover, if the withdrawal was purely psychological, then the Moabite king’s strategy worked—not because Chemosh necesarilyh exists, but because human psychology responded to the horror. That still means the sacrifice was effective. And it means the Lord’s prophet (Elisha) did not foresee this psychological effect, despite having just predicted total victory. That makes Elisha a false prophet by the standard of Deuteronomy 18.
The Real Problem: The Collapse of Objective Criteria
The Bible provides several tests for prophets. Each fails when subjected to the evidence of these passages.
Test One: Fulfillment (Deuteronomy 18:21–22)
“If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord and the word does not come true, that word was not spoken by the Lord.”
The Problem: This test only works after the fact. Ahab needed to decide before the battle. Moreover, 2 Kings 3 shows that even a true prophet (Elisha) can prophesy victory that does not come to pass. Either Elisha was not a true prophet (contradicting the text’s presentation of him) or the test fails. And if a lying spirit can make false prophets succeed (1 Kings 22), then even fulfilled prophecy is not proof of divine origin. A demon could produce a fulfilled prediction to deceive.
Test Two: Theological Orthodoxy (Deuteronomy 13:1–5)
“If a prophet arises and gives you a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder comes true, but he says, ‘Let us follow other gods,’ you must not listen.”
The Problem: This test catches only prophets who explicitly advocate idolatry. The 400 prophets in 1 Kings 22 spoke in the name of the Lord. They did not advocate other gods. Yet they were deceived. A lying spirit can speak perfectly orthodox theology while leading people to destruction. Theological orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.
Think about it. The above text says that a there can be a false prophet who can give signs and wonders.
In fact, they have Jesus say as much here:
“For there shall arise false christs and false prophets and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (Matthew 24:24)
The only thing that makes that prophet false is that he is doing these things either by the power or in the name of another god. This is no objective criteria at all. It puts both on an even playing field.
Test Three: Track Record and Character
The Problem: Ahab knew that Micaiah had a track record of negative prophecies. He still chose to believe the 400. Track record is probabilistic, not certain. And 2 Kings 3 shows that a prophet with an impeccable track record (Elisha) can prophesy a victory that does not occur. If Elisha can be wrong (or overridden by Chemosh), then no prophet’s track record guarantees future accuracy.
Test Four: The Prophet’s Willingness to Suffer
The Problem: Micaiah was willing to die for his message. So were many false prophets in other religions. Martyrdom proves sincerity, not accuracy. A sincerely deceived prophet (like the 400) might also be willing to suffer if he believed his message was from God.
The Theological Consequences
The arguments above are sound, then the following conclusions follow:
1. There is no objective, reliable criterion for distinguishing true prophecy from false in real time.
A person standing at the gate of Samaria with Ahab has no rational basis to choose between Micaiah and the 400 prophets. Both groups speak in the name of the Lord. Both may be sincere. One group is deceived. There is no external test available before the event that resolves the question.
2. The Lord can and does authorize deception.
The text of 1 Kings 22 is unambiguous: the Lord commissions a lying spirit to deceive prophets. This means that any prophet at any time could be the vehicle of divine deception. The reader of the Bible has no guarantee that any given prophetic book was not produced under the influence of a divinely sent lying spirit.
3. Other gods (or the spiritual entities behind them) have real power.
The plain reading of 2 Kings 3 is that Chemosh responded to child sacrifice with military effect against an army blessed by the Lord’s prophet. Whether Chemosh is a god, a demon, or a literary device, the narrative presents a rival deity successfully opposing the Lord’s plan. This undercuts any strong monotheism that claims the Lord alone acts in history. It also supports henotheism which is presented throughout the Bible.
4. Biblical prophecy is not a reliable basis for knowledge about God.
If prophecy can be deceived by divine design, and if rival deities can thwart prophetic predictions, then the prophetic corpus of the Bible cannot be trusted as a secure foundation for theology. The claims of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the minor prophets rest on the same prophetic mechanism that produced the 400 deceived prophets of 1 Kings 22. There is no external verification available to the modern reader that distinguishes true biblical prophets from false ones.
Possible Responses from Believing Scholarship.
Response 1: The Canonical Context
Believing scholars argue that the Bible as a whole provides its own hermeneutic. The lying spirit episode is a judgment on Ahab’s hardness of heart. The Chemosh episode shows the horror of child sacrifice, not Chemosh’s power. When read in the full canon—from Genesis to Revelation—these episodes do not undermine trust but reinforce the sovereignty of the Lord who uses even deception and foreign gods for his purposes.
Prima Qur’an response: This response assumes what it needs to prove—that the canon as a whole is trustworthy. The question at issue is whether the prophetic mechanism itself is reliable. Citing other biblical passages does not solve the problem because those passages come through the same unreliable prophetic mechanism. This is circular reasoning.
Response 2: Divine Accommodation
Some theologians argue that the Bible accommodates itself to ancient Near Eastern ways of thinking. The authors of 1 Kings and 2 Kings believed that other gods existed and that the Lord could use lying spirits.
Prima Qur’an Response: If the Bible accommodates false beliefs (that other gods exist, that the Lord sends lying spirits), then on what basis can any part of the Bible be trusted as accurate? Accommodationism is a slippery slope. If the Bible is wrong about the existence of Chemosh and the mechanism of divine deception, it could be wrong about anything. The reader is left with no objective criterion for deciding which parts are accommodation and which are truth.
Response 3: Existential Trust
Some theologians argue that faith does not rest on objective criteria. Faith is a leap. The absence of certainty is the condition for authentic trust. The objective uncertainty of prophecy is not a bug but a feature.
Prima Qur’an Response: This is an honest attempt at a response but it concedes the argument. If faith requires a leap without objective evidence, then the claim that “the Bible is reliable” is not a rational conclusion but a personal commitment. The skeptic who demands objective grounds for belief is not refuted; they are simply told that faith does not provide what they seek. That is a defensible position on the basis of faith alone, but it abandons any claim to rational demonstration.
Conclusion
The Bible itself provides no objective, reliable criterion for distinguishing true prophecy from false. The lying spirit of 1 Kings 22 demonstrates that sincere prophets speaking in the name of the Lord can be deceived by divine commission. The God of Chemosh in 2 Kings 3 demonstrates that rival deities (or the spiritual powers behind them) can successfully oppose armies blessed by the Lord’s true prophets.
These passages strike at the heart of biblical authority. If the prophetic mechanism is unreliable, then the prophetic books of the Bible are unreliable. If the Bible cannot provide a rational basis for trusting its own prophets, then the God of the Bible cannot be known with certainty through the Bible.
This does not prove that God does not exist. It proves something narrower but still devastating: the Bible does not give its readers a reliable, objective method for knowing that its prophets speak truth rather than a lying spirit. For anyone who demands rational grounds for belief, this is sufficient reason to withhold trust.
May Allah guide the sincere among the Jews and the Christians so that they do not enter the hellfire.
“O People of the Book! Now Our Messenger has come to you, revealing much of what you have hidden of the book and disregarding much. There certainly has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book. through which Allah guides those who seek His pleasure to the ways of peace, brings them out of darkness and into light by His Will, and guides them to the Straight Path. (Qur’an 5:15-16)
﷽
Henotheism is the worship of a single, supreme deity while acknowledging or accepting the existence of other, lesser gods.
Monotheism is the belief in the existence of only one god, or the oneness of God, distinguishing it from polytheism (many gods) and atheism.
The cypher of The Tetragrammaton revealed.
Tetra =4.
Gramma= letter.
Aton (Aten).
The Bible claims that their god used to be called ‘Baal’.
“And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal.’ (Hosea 2:16)
Ba’al (בעל) is the most commonly used in modern Hebrew for husband.
“Eluzai, Jerimoth, Bealiah, Shemariah and Shephatiah the Haruphite…” (1 Chronicles 12:5)
Bealiah which means Jehovah is Baal.
However, because the name Baal had become so associated with the Canaanite deity, there becomes a prohibition that commands Israel to stop using that title for Him altogether . This also proves that Israelites were using the same name for their God prior to this prohibition.
Barnes’ notes on the Bible has the following:
“God says, “so wholly do I hate the name of idols, that on account of the likeness of the word Baal, “my Lord,” I will not be so called even in a right meaning, lest, while she utter the one, she should think on the other, and calling Me her Husband, think on the idol.”
Think of it like this. Maybe there was a woman married to a man named Thomas. This woman received a divorce from Thomas. Now this woman is married to you and your name happens to also be Thomas. So, during intimacy, it is possible that you would not want her to call out your name as it could be awkward.
In the Qur’an Allah (swt) has never once been identified with Baal.
In fact, the two are contrasted and never conflated.
“When he said to his people, “Will you not fear Allah ?”Will you call upon Baal and forsake the Best of Creators.” (Qur’an 37:124-125)
The Bible portrays Jesus as a rebelious son who went away from Elyon (God) and sacrificed to Baals and burned incense to images.
Hosea 11:1-2 in context says:
“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more they were called, the more they went away from me.They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.” (Hosea 11:1-2)
The Qur’an presents clear monotheism.
“Allah! There is no god except Him, the Ever-Living, All-Sustaining.” (Qur’an 2:255)
Say, He Allah is Absolute. That which is independent of all but which all things are dependent upon. He does not bring for like kind nor was he from like kind And there is no equivalent to His being Absolute. (Qur’an 112:1-4)
This powerful surah is absolutely uncompromising.
We need to explain the reasons why we translate the text as we do.
Say, He Allah is Absolute.
We make a crucial distinction that most English translations obscure. Wāḥid appears throughout the Qur’an (e.g., 2:163, 5:73, 14:48) and means “one” in a numerical, countable sense. Aḥad, by contrast, appears in this surah and carries a different weight.
Wāḥid = one as opposed to two or more (quantitative oneness)
Aḥad = absolute, unique, singular without composition or peer (qualitative oneness)
Our translation of Aḥad as “Absolute” is therefore more precisethan “One,” which conflates Aḥad with Wāḥid. The standard “One and Only” tries to bridge this but still leans on number. “Absolute” correctly captures the mode of oneness rather than the count.
On Al-Ṣamad. That which is independent of all but which all things are dependent upon.
Standard translations (“Eternal,” “Absolute,” “Self-Sufficient,” “The Uncaused Cause”) each capture one facet. Our full clause—“That which is independent of all but which all things are dependent upon”—is arguably the most complete English rendering possible. It combines:
Negative theology (not dependent on anything)
Positive theology (all depend on Him)
Causal primacy (uncaused cause)
Implication: This is not a liability but an advantage. It sacrifices brevity (the Arabic Ṣamad is one word) but gains clarity. For a translation intended for study rather than liturgical memorization, this is defensible.
Why we do not render the text as “begets not nor is begotten”. He does not bring for like kind nor was he from like kind.
If Allah came from something else (was begotten): He would share a genus with that something else (both would be “things that originated from a prior cause”).
If something like Him came from Allah (begets): That something would share a genus with Allah (both would be “beings that produce likenesses”).
Either scenario destroys absoluteness. A truly absolute being has no genus. Genus implies shared properties, limitations, and comparability. An absolute being is sui generis in the literal sense: of its own kind.
Therefore, “does not bring for like kind nor was he from like kind” is theologically superior to “begets not nor is begotten” because:
It explicitly targets category membership, not biological process.
It avoids the English word “beget,” which confuses modern readers.
It closes the door on Neoplatonic emanation (where lower realities come from higher ones “like kind” in a chain of being) as well as Christian Trinitarian generation.
Implication: Our translation is a more universal negation of ontological continuity between Allah and creation than the conventional one. It addresses Christianity, Neoplatonism, certain Hindu cosmologies (e.g., prakriti giving birth to purusha-like realities), and any emanationist or filial model.
And there is no equivalent to His being Absolute.
Absoluteness is a maximal property. If two things were both absolute, each would limit the other’s absoluteness (each would fail to be absolute relative to the other). Absoluteness entails uniqueness necessarily, not accidentally.
Our final line—“no equivalent to his being absolute”—thus correctly implies that the property itself cannot be instantiated in any other subject. The property is self-uniquifying.
It is clear that Islam is monotheistic.
This is unlike the bible where someone could become like the God (Elyon) or like the deities in his assembly.
“And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.(Genesis 3:22-23)
“And the ETERNAL God said, “Now that humankind has become likeany of us, knowing good and bad, what if one should stretch out a hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!” (Genesis 3:22) –Source: (https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.3.22)
It is interesting that the Jews at Sefaria have translated the text as the Eternal God was worried that Adam may eat from a tree that would give him the property of living forever. This would make him like ‘any of us’.
Paul being the henotheist that he is says:
“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many; yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.” (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)
“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish: in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.” (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)
Paul concedes that there’s a “god of this world” separate from his god. He acknowledges that there are many gods. He just simply says that for him and his sect, they only worship one god, whom they call, ‘The Father’.
The TNCH or what the Christians call the Old Testament is replete with henotheistic passages. The Children of Israel went through different phases worshipping different gods at different times and even had a massive civil war over the matter.
You will notice when studying that the names of several deities names pop up time and again. These names are often conflated with the various other deities that the Children of Israel worshipped.
Perhaps the most damning evidence is as follows:
“When the Most High gave the nations thier inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel. For the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his alloted inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 32:8-9)
“Masoretic Text; Dead Sea Scrolls (see also Septuagint)sons of God.”
How does the New Revised Standard Version render the reading?
“When the Most High gave the nations thier inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the gods; For the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his alloted inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 32:8-9)
How did the transition from “bene Elohim” (sons of God) to “bene Yisrael” (sons of Israel) occur in Deuteronomy 32:8? The timing remains unknown. Whether this change took place during the intertestamental period or at the time of the text’s standardization around 100 AD — we simply do not know when it happened. But this much is certain: a scribe altered the text. Someone deliberately replaced “sons of God” with “sons of Israel.” The exact date of this change is unknown, but the fact that it occurred is beyond dispute. We know this because the Masoretic Text contains the altered reading, while the Dead Sea Scrolls preserve the original. And the Dead Sea Scrolls predate the Masoretic text by a full millennium. Israel is not even in existence when the nations are divided!
A scribe removed the three letters you see in green and added the two letters you see in red.
What does this mean?
Elyon was to be the god of Jacob and his people. The sons of Elyon. Or the other gods were to be for the other nations. In other words the main God (Elyon) divided Earth up among regional deities.
We see this in the following text:
“Will you not possess whatever Chemosh your god gives you to possess? So whatever the Lord our God takes possession of before us, we will possess.” (Judges 11:24)
It mentions that Chemosh is the god of the Ammonites, just as Israel has their own god.
“You shall have no other gods before/beside me.” (Exodus 20:3)
“You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,” (Exodus 20:5)
“Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” (Exodus 34:14)
“You shall have no other gods before/beside me.” (Deuteronomy 5:7)
These text are not a denial of other gods or deities. In fact, the above text describe this god as a jealous god.
This understanding of jealousy is a complex, often unpleasant emotion stemming from fear, insecurity, or a perceived threat to a valued relationship or status. It arises when someone feels threatened by a rival.
The way the Bible portrays this jealousy its as if the god of the children of Israel is in a genus. Even though this god acknowledges that he is superior there is a sort of pathological jealousy at play here.
“God(Elyon) stands in the congregation of the mighty; he judges among the gods.” (Pslam 82:1)
This verse indicates a superior deity presiding over lesser beings. A god among gods.
The Qur’an never describes Allah as a god among gods. Rather it negates any other deity except him.
Insh’Allah we will come back to (Pslam 82:1)
There is an interesting connection between Moloch and the god that the Children of Israel worshipped.
“Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.” (Genesis 14:18-20)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
Melchizedek is said to be a priest of God Most High, (Elyon). In other words the chief god.
Melchizedek needs to clarify who the (Elyon) Most High is. He is the Creator of heaven and earth.
“The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek'” (Psalm 110:4)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
Notice that this does not identify or equate the priest as Melchizedek but that he would be priest in his order.
“Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.” (Hebrews 7:3)
Whoever wrote the book of Hebrews must have had some access to extra Biblical data about Melchizedek that we do not know about.
What is interesting is the word translated as Melchizedek: Righteous King can easily be translated as Righteous Moloch.
We also have the following interesting text.
“Adonizedek, the king of Jerusalem, heard that Joshua had captured and totally destroyed Ai and had killed its king, just as he had done to Jericho and its king. He also heard that the people of Gibeon had made peace with the Israelites and were living among them. The people of Jerusalem were greatly alarmed at this because Gibeon was as large as any of the cities that had a king; it was larger than Ai, and its men were good fighters. So Adonizedek sent the following message to King Hoham of Hebron, King Piram of Jarmuth, King Japhia of Lachish, and to King Debir of Eglon. (Joshua 10:1-3)
Adonizedek is an interesting name. It means Adon is Zedek. Adon (Aton/Aten) is Righteous.
However, it can also mean that Adon is Zedek. My Lord is Zedek.
(Moloch) is a god satiated by human suffering. In particular the sacrifice of innocent children.
He is a god of holocaust. However, anyone who is a Christian will understand a deity who is satiated through the suffering of children, in particular one of his own.
“A divinity worshipped by the idolatrousIsraelites. The Hebrew pointing Molech does not represent the original pronunciation of the name, any more than the Greek vocalization Moloch found in the LXX and in the Acts (vii, 43). The primitive title of this god was very probably Melech, “king”, the consonants of which came to be combined through derision with the vowels of the word Bosheth, “shame”. As the word Moloch (A.V. Molech) means king, it is difficult in several places of the Old Testament to determine whether it should be considered as the proper name of a deity or as a simple appellative. The passages of the original text in which the name stands probably for that of a god are Lev., xviii, 21; xx, 2-5; III (A. V. I) Kings, xi, 7; IV (II) Kings, xxiii, 10; Isaiah 30:33; 57:9; Jeremiah 32:35. The chief feature of Moloch’s worship among the Jews seems to have been the sacrifice of children, and the usual expression for describing that sacrifice was “to pass through the fire”, a rite carried out after the victims had been put to death. The special centre of such atrocities was just outside of Jerusalem, at a place called Tophet (probably “place of abomination”), in the valley of Geennom. According to III (I) Kings, xi, 7, Solomon erected “a temple” for Moloch “on the hill over against Jerusalem”, and on this account he is at times considered as the monarch who introduced the impious cult into Israel. After the disruption, traces of Moloch worship appear in both Juda and Israel. The custom of causing one’s children to pass through the fire seems to have been general in the Northern Kingdom [IV (II) Kings, xvii, 17; Ezech. xxiii, 37], and it gradually grew in the Southern, encouraged by the royal example of Achaz (2 Kings 16:3) and Manasses [IV (II) Kings, xvi, 6] till it became prevalent in the time of the prophet Jeremias (Jerem. xxxii, 35), when King Josias suppressed the worship of Moloch and defiled Tophet [IV (II) Kings, xxiii, 13 (10)]. It is not improbable that this worship was revived under Joakim and continued until the Babylonian Captivity.”
“Aaron answered them, “Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me.” So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, “These are your gods,[b] Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, “Tomorrow there will be a festival to the Lord.” So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry. Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, ‘These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.’” (Exodus 32:2-8)
Prima Qur’an comments:
Prophet Aaron is claimed to have made an idol in the shape of a calf.
The people also said: These are your gods (plural) that brought you (Israel) out of Egypt.
The god that is speaking to moses reaffirms the above two points. Especially: “These are your gods,Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.”
Notice the translation is not sure if the word should be gods or god. However, it is clarified in what was said to Moses by the god that spoke to him. The people were claiming gods (plural) brought them out of Egypt.
Is it not very odd that it is claimed a prophet and servant of the One True God who witnessed miracles would so quickly go and do something like this in the absence of his brother (Moses)?
No one seems to the object to the idea that gods (not god) brought them out of Egypt.
During the civil war of Israel the following happened.
“After seeking advice, the king made two golden calves. He said to the people, “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” One he set up in Bethel, and the other in Dan. And this thing became a sin; the people came to worship the one at Bethel and went as far as Dan to worship the other.” (1 Kings 12:28-30)
Jewish Rabbis have debates about what type of worship of Molech is acceptable and what is not.
The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 64a):
“HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, OR THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO PENALTY, UNLESS HE DOES BOTH.”
Observation: The rabbis are parsing the precise act that constitutes a capital offense. Both elements are required: (1) delivering to Molech’s priests, and (2) causing the child to pass through fire.
The Gemara Discussion:
“R. Abin said: Our Mishnah is in accordance with the view that Molech worship is not idolatry. For it has been taught, whether to Molech or to any other idol he is liable. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: If to Molech, he is liable; if to another idol, he is not.”
This is striking. Some rabbis consider Molech worship not to be idolatry — or at least different in kind from other idol worship. Why?
“R. Hanina b. Antigonus said: Why did the Torah employ the word Molech? To teach that the same law applies to whatever they proclaimed as their king, even a pebble or a splinter.”
Molech is not necessarily a specific deity — it is any deity to whom one transfers sovereignty (“king”) over oneself. The rabbis are working hard to define the boundary.
The Critical Question the Rabbis Are Avoiding
If a Jew offered his child as a burnt offering to Yahweh, would that be permitted?
The rabbis do not address this directly. But their silence is telling.
Jephthah in Rabbinic Literature:
The Talmud (Ta’anit 4a) and later rabbinic commentary do address Jephthah — and they are highly critical of him. The general rabbinic view is that Jephthah should have sought to annul his vow through a sage, and that his failure to do so resulted in tragedy. Some rabbis even say he was punished for his foolishness (losing parts of his body, dying unnaturally).
However — and this is crucial — the rabbis never say that what Jephthah did was inherently impossible or categorically forbidden. They criticize his failure to seek annulment, not the act of human sacrifice itself. They also note that his daughter (like Isaac) was willing.
The Nakdimon Connection
One of the most revealing texts appears in the Babylonian Talmud (Nedarim 37a) and is cited in the Soncino commentary on Sanhedrin 64a. Rabbi Dr. Freedman, the translator, notes:
“The offering of children to Molech was not regarded as ordinary idolatry, but as a distinct offence. One reason is that it involved the destruction of one’s seed — an act of cruelty which even pagans normally did not practice. Another is that it was sometimes done in the name of the Lord, as in the case of Jephthah.”
Read that again: “It was sometimes done in the name of the Lord, as in the case of Jephthah.”
The rabbis knew that child sacrifice had been performed in Israel in the name of Yahweh. They were not condemning the practice universally — they were trying to regulate it, to distinguish between “legitimate” (Yahwistic) and “illegitimate” (pagan) contexts.
The god of Israel (Yahweh) is apparently satiated by human suffering. In particular the sacrifice of innocent children.
In (2 Samuel 21), David is king over Judah. A famine oppresses the land; King David learns that LORD God is punishing Israel for King Saul’s sin (Saul attacked the Gibeonites in violation of Joshua’s treaty (Joshua 9:15). Therefore, in order to relieve the famine, David must appease the Gibeonites. On negotiation, the Gibeonites demand to be given seven descendants of Saul to be hanged “unto the LORD.” David picks two of Saul’s sons and five of Saul’s grandsons. Coincidentally, the five grandsons are the children of Michal, the woman David had wanted to marry (see 1 Samuel 18:25). David gives these Israelites to the Gibeonites so the Gibeonites can hang them.
“Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David inquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites. And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them: and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah.) Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the LORD? And the Gibeonites said unto him, We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel. And he said, What ye shall say, that will I do for you. And they answered the king, The man that consumed us, and that devised against us that we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel, Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, whom the LORD did choose. And the king said, I will give them. But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of the LORD’s oath that was between them, between David and Jonathan the son of Saul. But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of barley harvest.” Source: (2 Samuel 21:1-11)
Prima Qur’an Comments: The God (Elyon) did not explicitly request the hangings. But The God (Elyon) imposed an insufferable famine on the Israelites, The God (Elyon) named the Gibeonites as the people to be appeased, and the Gibeonites named the penalty. When it was done, The God (Elyon) apparently found the human sacrifice to be satisfactory: the chapter continues with accounts of battles, and the famine is not mentioned further. This sequence — an angry god causes a natural disaster, innocent life is slain to appease the god’s anger, and the hardship ceases — this is the same sequence of events found in the human sacrifice rites of other primitive religions.
The God (Elyon) of the Bible did not stop Jephthah from burning his small daughter if the God (Elyon)gave him victory over his enemies.
“Then the Spirit of the Lord came on Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands. He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon. When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.” “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.” “You may go,” He said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin. (Judges 11:29-39)
Prima Qur’an Comments: Now there is major major copium from Christians and Jews regarding this.
Copium # 1. They try and put a spin that the sacrifice is to dedicate his daughter to the Lord as a virgin (meaning temple service) and Jephthah bemoaned that due this he would never have any descendants. Response: and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering & After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed The emphasis on her being a virgin is so she would be an unblemished sacrificed.
Copium #2. The God (Elyon) commands against sacrificing Children in the Bible.
Response. No, no he doesn’t!
“You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 18:21)
“I will also set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given some of his offspring to Molech, so as to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name.” (Leviticus 20:3)
“You shall not behave thus toward the Lord your God, for every abominable act which the Lord hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.” (Deuteronomy 12:31)
As well as the related practice of passing the children through the fire and not consuming them by the fire:
“There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer.” (Deuteronomy 18:10)
“You shall also say to the sons of Israel: ‘Any man from the sons of Israel or from the aliens sojourning in Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones.” (Leviticus 20:2)
Offering your children up as a burnt offering is not against the Torah teachings of the Jews. Nor was it something unacceptable to God. The offence in question was offering them up to Molech and NOT THE GOD (ELYON) OF ISRAEL!
“For I the Lord your God am a jealous God.” (Daniel 5:9)
This god that they worshipped is not against sacrifice or burnt offerings as we have already shown above. Their god
There is no issue with offering up children as a holocaust (burnt offering) to their god. The issue is doing it to false gods.
“They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molek, though I never commanded—nor did it enter my mind—that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.” (Jeremiah 32:35)
Because the Elyon, The High God of the Bible is jealous.
Did we forget?
“After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” (Genesis 22:1-2)
The Angel of the Lord as Satan and one of the gods among gods in the Bible.
In the Hebrew Bible, ha-satan (הַשָּׂטָן) is not a proper name but a title: “the Adversary” or “the Accuser” . This figure appears in the divine council — the assembly of elohim (divine beings) over which Elyon presides as supreme. Ha-Satan is not a rival god or a fallen angel — he is a subordinate being within Elyon’s administration. As one scholar puts it: “The Satan is a member of the divine council, serving as a sort of prosecutor or royal spy” (Peggy L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven).
“I was further shown Joshua, the high priest, standing before the angel of GOD, and the Accuser (Satan) standing at his right to accuse him. But [the angel of] GOD said to the Accuser (Satan), “GOD rebukes you, O Accuser; GOD who has chosen Jerusalem rebukes you! For this is a brand plucked from the fire.”
Here you have Ha-Satan standing at the right hand of the Angel of the LORD to accuse Joshua the high priest. Elyon (the Most High God) rebukes Ha-Satan.
“One day the divine beings presented themselves before GOD. The Adversary came along with them to present himself before GOD. GOD said to the Adversary, “Where have you been?” The Adversary answered GOD, “I have been roaming all over the earth.” GOD said to the Adversary, “Have you noticed My servant Job? There is no one like him on earth, a blameless and upright man who fears God and shuns evil. He still keeps his integrity; so you have incited Me against him to destroy him for no good reason. The Adversary answered GOD, “Skin for skin—all that the man has he will give up for his life. But lay a hand on his bones and his flesh, and he will surely blaspheme You to Your face.” So GOD said to the Adversary, “See, he is in your power; only spare his life.”The Adversary departed from GOD’s presence and inflicted a severe inflammation on Job from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.”
Here you have Ha-Satan appearing among the bene ha-elohim (sons of God) and acting as a prosecuting attorney, testing Job’s righteousness with Elyon’s permission. He is not an enemy of Elyon but a member of His court.
The Angel of the LORD as a Satan in Numbers 22
This is a fascinating and often overlooked passage.
The Narrative: Balaam is hired by Balak of Moab to curse Israel. He consults God (Elyon) who tells him not to go. Balak sends more prestigious messengers; Balaam asks again; God (Elyon)permits him to go but with conditions. On the way:
“But God’s anger was kindled because he went, and the Angel of the LORD stationed himself in the road as an adversary (satan) against him.” (Numbers 22:22)
Analysis:
The Hebrew word used for “adversary” is precisely לְשָׂטָן (l’satan) — “as a satan.”
The Angel of the LORD — generally understood as a manifestation of God (Elyon) Himself (since the Angel speaks as God and is worshipped as God elsewhere) — functions as an obstructor or adversary to Balaam.
This same Angel later permits Balaam to continue (Numbers 22:35).
What this means: God (Elyon)through His Angel) acts as both a guide and an adversary. The same being who permits Balaam to go also stands in his way as a satan. This shows that the role of “adversary” is not a separate being but a function that even God(Elyon) can perform.
As one commentary notes: “The Angel of the LORD acts as Balaam’s ‘adversary’ (satan)… This is the only place in the Old Testament where the Angel of the LORD is explicitly called a satan” (Gordon Wenham, Numbers).
“O Lord, you have deceived me, and I was deceived; you are stronger than I, and you have prevailed.” (Jeremiah 20:7)
Henotheism is the worship of one primary deity while accepting the existence of other gods within a pantheon. It is sort of a pantheon. As a middle ground between polytheism and monotheism, it allows followers to focus devotion on a single “king god”—such as Zeus, Odin, or in some forms of Hinduism—while recognizing other divine beings.
This is why we can have text like the following:
Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” (2 Samuel 24:1)
“Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.” (1 Chronicles 21:1)
This would seem to be a contradiction but when we realize that they are basically one and the same it makes sense from a henotheistic worldview.
The biblical divine council — with its bene ha-elohim, ha-satan as prosecutor, and the Angel of the LORD as a distinct yet divine figure — is not compatible with Islamic tawhid (radical monotheism). Whether the figure in question is called Baal, Molech, Yahweh, or Ha-Satan, the Qur’an would reject any theology that places other divine beings beside Allah.
Qur’an Surah 112 has been shown to absolutely demolish this framework.
Yahweh seems to be a sort of tribal war deity or war angel as presented in the TNCH. The part of the Bible the Christians call: ‘The Old Testament.’
The term Tzva’ot refers to armies or hosts. (Hebrew: Yahweh Tzva’ot) is a divine title in the Bible appearing over 200 times, primarily in the Old Testament, designating Yahweh as the god over all heavenly and earthly armies.
“Yahweh of Armies is with us. The God of Jacob is our refuge. “ (Pslam 46:7)
“Each year Elkanah would travel to Shiloh to worship and sacrifice to the LORD of Heaven’s Armies at the Tabernacle. The priests of the LORD at that time were the two sons of Eli—Hophni and Phinehas.” (1 Samuel 1:3)
“The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.” (Exodus 15:3)
You even have henotheistic views put in the mouth of the One True God’s Prophets!
“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God (τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεόν), and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (John 17:3)
Here he could have simply said “only God.” By adding “true” (ἀληθινός), he leaves open the possibility that other beings exist who could be called “gods” (elohim) — but they are not the true God.
The Jehovah’s Witness have translated John 1:1 as:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1)
“Who among the gods is like you, Lord?” (Exodus 15:11)
“For the Lord is the great God, the great King above all gods.” (Pslam 95:3)
“All who worship images are put to shame, those who boast in idols—Worship him, all you gods!” (Psalm 97:7)
“For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.” (Deuteronomy 10:17)
This is far from monotheism. This is far from what is presented in the Qur’an.
Is it little wonder we those socities that succumb to these beliefs ridden with demonic forces? Even the innocent among them they have no idea what they are even worshipping! May Allah Guide these people to the truth before the burn in hellfire.
“O humanity! Eat from what is lawful and good on the earth and do not follow Satan’s footsteps. He is truly your sworn enemy. He only incites you to commit evil and indecency, and to claim against Allah what you do not know.” (Qur’an 2:168-169)
﷽
According to Islamic teachings does Allah have attributes such as teeth, biceps, 66 thumbs, 17 hooves, a tail, gills, or fur?
First, let it be clear that we are not aware of any sects among Muslims today who does affirm such things for Allah (swt).
However, we need to understand something.
If someone asks usdoes Allah have attributes such as teeth, biceps, 66 thumbs, 17 hooves, a tail, gills, or fur we can answer absolutley not. We can negate these for Allah (swt). This is because of our holistic approach to the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
We have dealt with that in the following articles:
However, there is another vocal group among the Muslims who would not be able to deny that Allah (swt) has attributes such as teeth, biceps, 66 thumbs, 17 hooves, a tail, gills, or fur.
The best they can do is to say: We have no revealed texts in regard to these attributes. We can neither affirm nor deny.
They could quote the following:
“Although they have no knowledge of this. They follow nothing but assumptions. And surely assumptions can in no way replace the truth.” (Qur’an 53:28)
The text is warning us not to speculate about that which we have no certain knowledge of. Howver, according to the appraoch of these Muslims the above text does not negate those possible attributes for Allah (swt).
Likewise, we may outright reject the idea of Allah (swt) having attributes such as teeth, biceps, 66 thumbs, 17 hooves, a tail, gills, or fur by quoting the following:
“To those who disbelieve in the Hereafter belong all evil qualities, whereas to Allah belong the finest attributes. And He is the Almighty, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 16:60)
But to those who interpret otherwise, they would claim that there is nothing inherently evil to Allah (swt) having teeth, biceps, 66 thumbs, 17 hooves, a tail, gills, or fur.
Other examples:
Say: “Take on Allah’s colour.” And whose colour is better than Allah’s? It is Him that we serve.” (Qur’an 2:138)
The Arabic Term: The word used is Sibghah (صِبْغَةَ), which literally means dye, tint, or color.
The Meaning of “Colour of Allah”: It refers to the true faith of Islam that permeates a person’s inner and outer life, just as dye changes the color of a cloth entirely. It represents purity, sincerity, and the adoption of divine characteristics in behavior and worship.
However, some Muslims may understand from the above verse that Allah (swt) has a colour! Though accordingly, Allah (swt) has not revealed what colour he is it leaves some to wonder rather Allah (swt) is white (in a way that befits his majesty) or rather Allah (swt) is black (in a way that befits his majesty).
Those Muslims do not seem to understand or appreciate that the Qur’an and Sunnah has Majaz.
Majaz (مجاز) in Arabic has a few related meanings depending on the context, but the most common and important one — especially in language, literature, and Islamic studies — is figurative language or metaphor/trope.
“Such as took their religion to be mere amusement and play, and were deceived by the life of the world.” That day shall We forget them as (كَمَا) they forgot the meeting of this day of theirs, and as they were wont to reject Our signs.” (Qur’an 7:51)
The Arabic word كَمَا (transliterated as kamā or kama) is a very common conjunction and particle. Its primary meaning is “as”, “like”, or “just as” (indicating similarity, manner, or comparison).
We know that it is a huge error to say that Allah (swt) forgot anything.
“He replied, “That knowledge is with my Lord in a Record. My Lord neither falters nor forgets.” (Qur’an 20:52)
Another way to translate Qur’an 7:51 would be:
“Those who took this faith as mere amusement and play and were deluded by worldly life.” “Today We will ignore them just as they ignored the coming of this Day of theirs and for rejecting Our revelations.” (Qur’an 7:51)
You can see multiple translations of the above verse here:
While Allah (swt) does not forget anyone, He may leave those who are arrogant and refuse to repent, or those who commit sins against others without seeking forgiveness, to face the consequences of their actions. This can be interpreted as a form of divine abandonment.
This is why translating as ignoring makes more sense in light of the other verses of the Qur’an that clearly state that Allah (swt) is All Knowing.
It also make sense in regard to human beings. No human being really forgets that they will die or ultimately meet their fate. However, they put this issues off. Proof of this is how many people who believe in the afterlife have not even made a will?
There is Majaz in the hadith as well.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “Allah said, ‘I will declare war against him who shows hostility to a pious worshipper of Mine. And the most beloved things with which My slave comes nearer to Me, is what I have enjoined upon him; and My slave keeps on coming closer to Me through performing Nawafil (praying or doing extra deeds besides what is obligatory) till I love him, so I become his sense of hearing with which he hears, and his sense of sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he grips, and his leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me, I will give him, and if he asks My protection (Refuge), I will protect him; (i.e. give him My Refuge) and I do not hesitate to do anything as I hesitate to take the soul of the believer, for he hates death, and I hate to disappoint him.”
So to say that Allah (swt) becomes something means he was not that before. This means that Allah (swt) changes based upon a believer’s particular state at any given moment.
The outward reading of the hadith leads to unacceptable positions such as: incarnation (hulul) or union (ittihad).
“Say “Each is waiting, so keep waiting! You will soon know who is on the Straight Path and is guided.” (Qur’an 20:135)
Surely those who say, “Our Lord is Allah,” and then remain steadfast, the angels descend upon them, “Do not fear, nor grieve. Rather, rejoice in the good news of Paradise, which you have been promised.” (Qur’an 41:30)
﷽
The Prophet (saw) said to Ali: Lā yadkhulu al-jannah illā nafs muʾminah” (لَا يَدْخُلُ الْجَنَّةَ إِلَّا نَفْسٌ مُؤْمِنَةٌ)
Zaid bin Yathi’ said: We asked Sayyiduna Ali: With what message did the Messenger of Allah (saw) send you? He replied: I was sent with four things. First, that only a believing soul will enter Paradise.
Belief in Islam is composed of three major elements.
To proclaim with the tongue there is no God except Allah and Muhammed (saw) is his Messenger.
Sincerity with Allah.
Actions. To do righteous deeds and to avoid evil deeds.
Surely those who say, “Our Lord is Allah,” and then remain steadfast, the angels descend upon them, “Do not fear, nor grieve. Rather, rejoice in the good news of Paradise, which you have been promised.” (Qur’an 41:30)
Does anyone understand from the above verse that a person can enter paradise simply by believing in Allah and Muhammed is his Messenger without the need to perform any actions?
Have you ever pondered on the message delivered in one of the shortest chapters in the Qur’an?
Surah Al-‘Asr.
By the time! Surely humanity is in loss, except those who have faith, do good, and enjoin on each other the truth, and enjoin on each other patience. (Qur’an 103:1-3)
Can you imagine, based upon your own understanding of this previously quoted chapter, that people are entitled to receive that great reward of paradise, of Al Jannah, without doing good deeds?
This chapter of the Qur’an delivers a clear message. The salvation of mankind is linked to both faith and actions. Good deeds are inseparable from true faith. True faith is necessarily linked to good deeds. The two are interlocked.
If we want to know the correct Islamic creed, the correct Islamic aqidah as taught by the Blessed Prophet (saw), make sure first and foremost you base your creed on the verses of the Qur’an that are clear with clear meanings. If you do so, you will be able to differentiate between the authentic traditons of the Blessed Prophet (saw) from the fabricated ones.
Muslims the world over, in all their denominations, believe that on the day of judgement no one will enter paradise without the intercession of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
The debate comes down to the following:
Is this intercession for all those who testify that there is no god except Allah and Muhammed (saw) is his Messenger ?
A special honour and privilege for the Muslims who fear Allah.
“He knows what is before them, and what is behind them, and they cannot intercede except for him, with whom He is pleased. And they stand in awe for fear of Him.” (Qur’an 21:28)
Imagine an individual who, their whole life they miss the prayers, they commit fornication and adultery, and they die unrepentant.
Is Allah content or pleased with this person? The answer is no!
The above verse provides clear-cut evidence that whatever Shafa’at that there will be, it will be for those with whom Allah (swt) is pleased.
In Christianity, they have a theological position that Christ Jesus is their intercessor on the day of judgement.
“My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.” (1 John 2:1)
“Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.” (Romans 8:34)
“For, There is one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5)
In Christianity, Faith in Jesus is enough. It is sufficient to enter into paradise.
In Islam, true faith is accompanied by righteous living, righteous action, and righteous deeds.
“He knows what is before them, and what is behind them, and they cannot intercede except for him, with whom He is pleased. And they stand in awe for fear of Him.” (Qur’an 21:28)
“Those who carry the Throne and those around it glorify the praises of their Lord, have faith in Him, and seek forgiveness for the believers, Our Lord! You encompass everything in mercy and knowledge. So forgive those who repent and follow Your Way, and protect them from the torment of Hellfire.” (Qur’an 40:7)
From this verse we can understand that there are three major pre-conditions for Allah (swt) to forgive your sins.
To believe in Islam.
TTo actually want to be forgiven—via repentance.
Follow the way Allah (swt) has set out for us.
One of the most important methods of interpreting the Qur’an is to apply to it the rules and the principles of the Arabic language. As the Qur’an itself was sent down in Arabic.
Consider, for example, the following verse:
“And warn them, [O Muhammed], of the Approaching Day, when hearts are at the throats, filled [with distress]. For the wrongdoers there will be no devoted friend and no intercessor [who is] obeyed.” (Qur’an 40:18)
When you look at this verse you will see the مَا (mā) which is used in the Arabic language to negate. And then come two nouns. The first is ḥamīmin and the other is shafīʿin. Both are indefinite nouns. This means that this verse implies a general sense. Meaning that all intercessors and all friends will not be acceptable on the day of judgement to intercede for the wrong doers.
So there is a principle in the Arabic language and fundamentals of Islamic jurisprudence known as uṣūl al-fiqh saying that if an indefinite noun is found in a negative context or prohibitive context or conditional context, it will produce a general sense.
So what we get from this is that no one will intercede for a person who did not repent in this temporal world.
We have seen that one of the most damnable articles of faith held by some Muslims is the belief that the sinners who died unrepentant will be admitted into paradise on the day of judgement.
Now contrast this belief with the following authentic tradition of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Narrated Abu Huraira:
When Allah revealed the verse: “Warn your nearest kinsmen,” Allah’s Messenger (saw) got up and said, “O people of Quraish (or said similar words)! Buy (i.e. save) yourselves (from the Hellfire) as I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment; O Bani `Abd Manaf! I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment, O Safiya, the Aunt of Allah’s Messenger (saw)! I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment; O Fatima bint Muhammed! Ask me anything from my wealth, but I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment.”
Now what do we understand from this tradition? Will there be intercession for the unrepentant sinners? Will there be intercession for the wrongdoers and wicked who died unrepentant?
Prima Quran 