EXPOSING ANOTHER ISLAMIC BLUNDER

Both the Quran and the sunnah of Muhammad attest that the actions of specific individuals can and do impact others, whether for good or bad.

For instance, the Muslim scripture warns from afflictions that will not only affect the wrongdoers, but also the righteous:

And fear the Fitnah (affliction and trial, etc.) which affects not in particular (only) those of you who do wrong (but it may afflict all the good and the bad people), and know that Allah is Severe in punishment. S. 8:25 Hilali-Khan

It further teaches that persons will bear or suffer from the burdens or sins of others:

That they may bear their burdens entirely on the day of resurrection and also of the burdens of those whom they lead astray without knowledge; now surely evil is what they bear. S. 16:25 Shakir

And those who disbelieve say to those who believe: Follow our path and we will bear your wrongs. And never shall they be the bearers of any of their wrongs; most surely they are liars. And most certainly they shall carry their own burdens, AND OTHER BURDENS WITH THEIR OWN BURDENS, and most certainly they shall be questioned on the resurrection day as to what they forged. S. 29:12-13 Shakir

And according to the Quran, the offspring of believers will be joined with their parents in paradise:

And those who believe and whose offspring follow them in Faith, to them shall We join their offspring, and We shall not decrease the reward of their deeds in anything. Every person is a pledge for that which he has earned. S. 52:21 Hilali-Khan

Here’s how the major Muslim expositors interpreted this text:

And those who believed wa’lladhīna āmanū the subject and whom We made to be followed wa-atba‘nāhum a variant reading has wa’ttaba‘athum ‘and there followed them’ as a supplement to āmanū ‘who believed’ by their descendants dhurrīyātihim a variant reading for this plural has dhurrīyatuhum young and old in faith on the part of the older ones and on the part of the parents in their young ones the predicate of the subject above is the following alhaqnā bihim We will make their mentioned descendants join them in Paradise so that they are in the same degree of reward even though they might not have performed the same meritorious deeds as them to deserve this equal status a way of honouring the parents by having their children join them again; and We will not deprive them read alatnāhum or alitnāhum We will not diminish them of anything min shay’in min is extra of their deeds in order to add it to the deeds of their children. Every man is subject to what he has earned of good or evil deeds and will be requited for evil and rewarded for good. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=52&tAyahNo=21&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2; bold emphasis mine)

(And they who believe) in Muhammad and the Qur’an and are true in their faith (and whose seed follow them in faith) in the life of the world, (We cause their seed to join them (there)) in the Hereafter, enjoying the same rank as that of their fathers; it is also said that this means: and those who believe in Muhammad and the Qur’an, We will enter them into the Garden along with their young children, thus enjoying the same rank, because these offspring had already believed on the Day of the Primordial Covenant. We made their fathers follow them. It is also said that this means: We make the offspring attain to the same rank as that of the fathers, if the ranks of the fathers are higher, (and We deprive them of naught of their (life’s) work) He says: We do not diminish the reward of the fathers at all upon making their offspring join them. (Every man is a pledge) such that Allah does with him as He will (for that which he hath earned) of sins. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=52&tAyahNo=21&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2; bold emphasis mine)

This is part of the perfect bliss of the people of paradise: Allah will cause to join them their offspring who followed them in faith. Allah will cause these offspring to reach their parents’ level in paradise, even though their deeds were not sufficient to reach their parents’ level, as an increased reward for their parents. Moreover, that will not detract from the good deeds of the parents in the slightest.

Because some may imagine that the same is applicable to the people of hell, and that Allah will cause their offspring or parents to join them, Allah tells us that the rulings governing the two realms are not the same. Hell is the realm of justice, and part of Allah’s justice is that He does not punish anyone except for his own sin. Hence He says: <Every person is held in pledge for what he earns>. So no soul will bear the burden of another and the sins of one person will not be borne by another. This is adding a further comment in order to remove any misunderstanding. (Tafseer as-Sa’di: Juz’ 25-27, by Abdur-Rahman Nasir as-Sa‘di [International Islamic Publishing House, 2018], translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab, edited by Huda Khattab, Volume 9, p. 316; bold emphasis mine)

Hence, the righteous deeds of believers will result in their offspring attaining the same status and rank of their parents, even in cases where the children haven’t been as pious or done as many good deeds as they!

Muhammad even taught that both the wicked and/or their offspring who died young will be tortured in hell:

The Offspring of Righteous Believers will be elevated to Their Grades in Paradise

In this Ayah, Allah the Exalted affirms His favor, generosity, graciousness, compassion and beneficence towards His creation. When the offspring of the righteous believers imitate their parents regarding faith, Allah will elevate the latter to the ranks of the former, even though the latter did not perform deeds as goodly as their parents. Allah will comfort the eyes of the parents by seeing their offspring elevated to their grades. Surely, Allah will gather them together in the best manner, and He will not decrease the reward or the grades of those higher in rank for joining them together, hence His statement…

(to them shall We join their offspring, and We shall not decrease the reward of their deeds in anything.) Ath-Thawri reported that Ibn `Abbas said, “Verily, Allah elevates the ranks of the believers’ offspring to rank of their parents, even though the latter have not performed as well as the former, so that the eyes of the parents are comforted.” Ibn `Abbas then recited this Ayah…

(And those who believe and whose offspring follow them in faith, — to them shall We join their offspring, and We shall not decrease the reward of their deeds in anything.) Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim recorded this statement from Sufyan Ath-Thawri from Ibn `Abbas. Ibn Abi Hatim also recorded that Ibn `Abbas commented on Allah’s statement…

(And those who believe and whose offspring follow them in faith, — to them shall We join their offspring.) saying, “They are the offspring of the believers who died on the faith. If the ranks of their parents are higher than their ranks, they will be joined with their parents. No part of the reward their parents received for their good deeds will be reduced for them.” `Abdullah, son of Imam Ahmad, recorded that `Ali said, “Khadijah asked the Prophet about two of her children who died during the time of Jahiliyyah, and the Messenger of Allah said…

<<They are both IN THE FIRE.>> When he saw sadness on her face, he said…

<<If you saw their dwelling place, you would hate them.>> She said, `O Allah’s Messenger! What about my children with you.’ He said…

<<They are in Paradise.>> The Messenger of Allah said…

<<Verily, the believers AND THEIR OFFSPRING will dwell in Paradise, while the idolators AND THEIR OFFSPRING will dwell IN THE HELLFIRE.>> The Prophet then recited the Ayah…

(And those who believe and whose offspring follow them in faith…)”

Certainly, it is Allah’s grace and favor that He grants the children this blessing BECAUSE of the good deeds of their parents. He also grants His favor to parents ON ACCOUNT of their offspring invoking Allah for them. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, said that the Messenger of Allah said…

<<Verily, Allah shall elevate the grade of a righteous servant in Paradise, who will ask, “O Lord! How did I earn this?” Allah will reply, “Through your son’s invoking Me to forgive you.”>>

This Hadith has an authentic chain of narration, but it was not recorded in the Sahih this way. However, there is a witnessing narration for it in Sahih Muslim, from the Hadith of Abu Hurayrah, who said that the Messenger of Allah said…

<<When the Son of Adam dies, his record of deeds will cease except in three cases: an ongoing charity, knowledge that people are benefiting from and a righteous son who invokes Allah for him.>> (Tafsir Ibn Kathir https://www.alim.org/quran/tafsir/ibn-kathir/surah/52/21/; emphasis mine)

Muhammad further stated that Allah will even torture Jews, Christians, and unbelievers in general, not only for their own sins but also for the evil deeds committed by Muslims:

Superiority of the believers in the Oneness of Allah and the punishment of the Jews and Christians

8) Narrated Abu Musa: Allah’s Messenger said: On the Day of Resurrection, my Ummah (nation) will be gathered into three groups. One sort will enter Paradise without rendering an account (of their deeds). Another sort will be reckoned an easy account and admitted into Paradise. Yet another sort will come bearing on their backs heaps of sins like great mountains. Allah will ask the angels though He knows best about them: Who are these people? They will reply: They are humble slaves of yours. He will say: UNLOAD the sins from them AND PUT THE SAME OVER the Jews and Christians: then let the humble slaves get into Paradise by virtue of My Mercy.

(This Hadith IS SOUND and mentioned in Mustadrak of Hakim). (110 Hadith Qudsi (Sacred Hadith), translated by Syed Masood-ul-Hasan, revision and commentaries by Ibrahim m. Kunna [Darussalam Publishers and Distributors], pp. 19-20 https://islamicstudies.info/hadith/110-Ahadith-Qudsi.pdf – see also https://ahadith.co.uk/110ahadithqudsi.php; emphasis mine)

Allah offers up these disbelievers as a vicarious/substitutionary/atoning sacrifice in hell, since this is how he plans to redeem/ransom Muslims from Allah’s everlasting punishment and humiliation, which would otherwise have befallen them:  

432. Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari reported: Messenger of Allah said, “On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will deliver to every Muslim, a Jew or a Christian and say: ‘This is YOUR RANSOM from Hell-fire.”‘

Another narration is: Messenger of Allah said, “There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with sins as heavy as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them”.

[Muslim]. (Al-Imam Abu Zakariya Yahya bin Sharaf An-Nawawi Ad-Dimashqi, Riyad as-Salihin (The Meadows of the Righteous), The Book of Miscellany, 51. Chapter: On Hope https://sunnah.com/riyadussalihin:432; bold and capital emphasis mine)

(20) CHAPTER. Disbelievers are sent to Hell as SACRIFICE to the Muslims

1937. Abu Musa narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: “When it is the Day of Resurrection, Allah will deliver every Muslim a Jew or Christian and say: ‘THAT IS YOUR SACRIFICE FROM HELL-FIRE.’” (The Translation of the Meanings of Summarized Sahih Muslim (Arabic–English), Compiled by Al-Hafiz Zakiuddin Abdul-Azim Al-Mundhiri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: February 2000], Volume 2, 62– The Book Of Repentance And Allah’s Great Mercy, pp. 1033-1034; capital emphasis mine)

Here is a different rendering of the above hadith, along with a couple of others from Sahih Muslim:

Chapter 8: THROWING OF NON-BELIEVERS IN HELL-FIRE FOR BELIEVERS AS DIVINE GRACE AND MERCY

Abu Musa’ reported that Allah’s Messenger 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. (Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6665 https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=037&translator=2&start=0&number=6665)

Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Apostle 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. (Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6666)

Abu Burda reported Allah’s Messenger 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? I said: Yes. (Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6668)

It gets even worse.

The following version of this report exposes the heinous and sadistic nature of Muhammad’s god since it depicts the Islamic deity as actually being elated over the fact that Jews and Christians will be tortured in hell in the place of Muhammadans:

In a slightly more detailed version, Abu Musa leads us to an explanation of the reason for God’s laughter:

The Prophet said: “On the Day of Resurrection our Lord, to Him belong glory and greatness, shall be revealed to us, laughing (yataglla dahikan). And He will say: ‘Rejoice, you Muslims! For I have REPLACED each one of you destined to go to Hell with a Jew or a Christian’.”¹⁷ (Livnat Holtzman, “‘Does God Really Laugh?” – Appropriate and Inappropriate Descriptions of God in Islamic Traditionalist Theology,’” Laughter in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times (Fundamentals of Medieval and Early Modern Culture), ed. Albrecht Classen [De Gruyter, Berlin/New York; 1^st edition, 2010], Chapter 2, p. 172; bold and capital emphasis mine)

¹⁷ Al‐Agurri, Kitab al‐sariah, 295, hadith no. 641; Al‐Agurri, Kitab al‐tasdiq, 76. (Ibid.)

The aforementioned Islamic scholar cites a lengthier version of this abominable narration:

The Messenger of God said: When the Day of Resurrection comes God will bring all the nations together in the same plateau. And when He sees fit to separate between His creatures, He will present to each nation [the idol] that they used to worship. The people will follow their idols until they will be pushed into the fire. Then our Lord the Blessed and Exalted will come to us as we stand in a high place, and say: ‘Who are you?’ and we will say: ‘We are the Muslims.’ He will say: ‘What are you waiting for you? They (i.e. the Muslims) will say: ‘We are waiting for our Lord the Blessed and Exalted.’ He will say: ‘How will you recognize Him when you have never seen Him?’ And they will say: ‘He has no equal.’ Then, He will be revealed to them LAUGHING, and say: ‘Rejoice, oh you Muslims! For I have already replaced each one of you destined to go to Hell with a Jew or a Christian.’⁵⁹ (Holtzman, Anthropomorphism in Islam: The Challenge of Traditionalism (700-1350) [Edinburgh University Press LTD, 2019], 1. The Narrator and the Narrative: A Literary Analysis of Ahadith al-Sifat, pp. 33-34; bold and capital emphasis mine)

Talk about evil and sadistic!

Allah is depicted as being absolutely giddy as he tells Muhammadans to rejoice that the Islamic god has ransomed them from their evil deeds by placing in their steads Jews and Christians in hell, whom he will torture and humiliate forever and ever!

Holtzman has more narrations:

When the Day of Resurrection arrives, [the idols] that each nation used to worship in this world will be presented before them. Each nation will approach [the idol] that they used to worship in this world, and only the monotheists (ahl al-tawhid) will remain. Someone will then say to them: ‘What are you waiting for, when everyone else has already gone?’⁶⁵ And they we will answer: ‘We have a lord whom we used to worship in the material world, but we have never seen him.’ They will be asked: ‘Will you know him when you see him?’ They will say: ‘Yes.’ They will be asked: ‘So, how will you recognize him, when you have never seen him?’ They will answer: ‘Because there is nothing similar to him.’ Suddenly, the curtain will be drawn in front of them, and they will see God, the mighty and powerful. Immediately they will prostrate themselves on the ground – all, but a group of people who will want to prostrate themselves but will be unable to do so, because their backs will be stuck and erect like cattle’s horns. This [scene] will be exactly as described in the Quranic verse: ‘On the day when the dread event unfolds and they are told to prostrate themselves, they will be unable.⁶⁶ So God will say to them: ‘Raise your heads up, because for each and every one of you I marked A SUBSTITUTE who is either a Jew or a Christian, to be sent INSTEAD OF YOU to Hell.’⁶⁷ (Ibid., p. 36; bold and capital emphasis mine)

According to his avowal, Sa’id ibn Abi Burda accompanied his father in the delegation to the caliph al-Walid. As Ahmad ibn Hanbal remarked, Sa’id never denied that ‘Umar asked his father to swear on the authenticity of the hadith that he recounted to him. Following the material in Ahmad ibn Habnbal’s Musnad and Muslim’s Sahih, Ibn ‘Asakir added that Sa’id never denied nor affirmed this incident.⁹⁸ According to Sa’id, after completing his business with ‘Umar, Abu Burda awakened Sa’id in the middle of the night and led him through the streets of Damascus. They arrived at ‘Umar’s house, which was situated between the vegetable market and the cheese market, and knocked on the gate of the house. The gatekeeper informed Abu Burda that ‘Umar had already retired to bed, but Abu Burda insisted on informing ‘Umar that he was waiting for him at the gate. Soon after, permission was granted for Abu Burda and his son to enter the house. ‘Is something wrong, Abu Burda?’ – asked ‘Umar whose sleep was interrupted. ‘Everything is fine’ – answered Abu Burda. ‘What is that you want?’  – asked ‘Umar. Abu Burda explained: ‘I finished my business, but I remembered a hadith that my father had told me. And here it is: The Messenger of God said: When the people will be gathered for Judgment Day, a Jew or a Christian will be brought, and [a voice] will say:  Oh Believer! This is the SACRIFICE that will REDEEM YOU from Hell!’⁹⁹ ‘Umar asked: ‘Did you hear it from your father?’ Abu Burda confirmed this… (Ibid., pp. 43-44; bold and capital emphasis mine)

Finally:

I [Qudama ibn Hamata al-Dabbi] was sitting at ‘Umar ‘Abd al-‘Aziz’s when suddenly Abu Burda, the son of Abu Musa came in, and told ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz that he once heard his father tell the following hadith on the authority of the Prophet, who said, ‘In the Day of Resurrection, the Jew and the Christian will be brought and a voice will say: “Oh Muslim, this is THE SACRIFICE that will REDEEM YOU from Hell”.’ ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz said to Abu Burda: ‘Allah, there is no god but Him! Did you hear your father tell this hadith on the authority of the Messenger of God?’ [Abu Burda] said: ‘Allah, there is no god but Him! My father indeed told me this hadith, and he in his turn heard it from the Messenger of God.’ [Qudama said]: I then saw ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz prostrate himself in adoration three times.¹⁰⁷ (Ibid., p. 45; bold and capital emphasis mine)

59. Al-Ajurri, Kitab al-Shari’a, p. 279, hadith 608; Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 32, pp. 422-4, hadith 19654; Ibn Khuzayma, Kitab al-Tawhid, pp. 577-8, hadith 340; al-Darimi, Radd, p. 92, hadith 180; Gimaret, Dieu a l’image de l’homme, p. 268…

67. Al-Ajurri, Kitab al-Shari’a, p. 278, hadith 607. For a different version, see al-Ajurri, Kitab al-tasdiq, p. 80; al-Tabarani, Al-Mu’jam al-Kabir, vol. 9, p. 418…

98. Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh Dimashq, vol. 21, p. 166.

99. Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 32, pp. 375-6, hadith 196000.

100. Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh Dimashq, vol. 26, p. 47 (the biography of Abu Burda).

101. Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 32, pp. 375-6, hadith 196000.    

102. Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh Dimashq, vol. 25, pp. 134-5 (the biography of Talha ibn Yahya Talha ibn ‘Ubayd Allah)…

104. Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Jarh wa’l-ta’dil, vol. 7, pp. 127-8; Ibn Habban, al-Thiqat, vol. 7, p. 341 …

107. Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh Dimashq, vol. 49, pp. 301-2. (Ibid., pp. 61-64)

Here’s where the problem lay for Muslims.

The aforementioned statements are contradicted by the following verses and reports:

And every man’s work have WE fasten to his neck; and on the Day of Resurrection WE shall bring out for him a book which he will find wide open. It will be said to him, ‘Read thy book. Sufficient is thy own soul as a reckoner against thee this day.’ He who follows the right way follows it only for the good of his own soul; and he who goes astray, goes astray only to his own loss. And no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another. And WE shall never punish until WE have sent a Messenger. S. 17:13-15 Sher Ali

That no burdened person (with sins) shall bear the burden (sins) of another, And that man can have nothing but what he does (good or bad), And that his deeds will be seen, Then he will be recompensed with a full and the best recompense S. 53:38-41 Hilali-Khan

Here, the Muslim scripture clearly attests that no sinner will bear the punishment of another’s sins, and that a person will only be recompensed for his/her own individual deeds.

Note how the Muslim commentators explain these texts:

and that wa-an to be understood as wa-annahu man shall have only what he himself strives for of good deeds and so he shall not have anything of the reward for good deeds striven for by another; (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Q. 53:39 https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=53&tAyahNo=39&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2; bold emphasis mine)

(That no laden one shall bear another’s load) that no bearer shall bear the sins of another; it is also said that this means: no soul shall be tormented for the sins of another soul, (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs, Q. 53:38 https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=53&tAyahNo=38&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2; bold emphasis mine)

Now pay close attention to the struggle of the next two Muslim scholars as they attempt to make sense out of these blatant contradictions:

<that no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another; that man will have nothing but what he strives for> that is, each person who strives will have his own deeds, both good and bad, and no one will have a share of the deeds and efforts of any other person, nor will anyone carry another person’s burden of sin.

<that his deeds will be examined> in the hereafter, and his good deeds will be distinguished from his bad deeds.

<then he will be requited in full> that is, purely good deeds will be requited with that which is the best (paradise); purely bad deeds will be requited with that which is the worst (hell); and deeds that are mixed will be requited accordingly. All of creation will acknowledge the justice and kindness of Allah, and will praise Allah for that, to the extent that even when the people of hell enter hell, their hearts will be filled with praise of their Lord and acknowledgement of His perfect wisdom and their own loathsomeness; they will acknowledge that it is they who brought it upon themselves and caused themselves to meet this bad fate.

The verse  <that man will have nothing but what he strives for> is quoted as evidence by those who think that the reward for acts of worship cannot be given to anyone else, whether alive or dead. They say: that is because Allah says  <that man will have nothing but what he strives for> (53:39), so the idea that the efforts of others for his sake may benefit him is contrary to that. But this view is subject to further discussion. In fact the verse indicates that each person will have only what he strives for himself. This is true, and there is no disagreement concerning that, but there is nothing in this verse to indicate that he cannot benefit from the effort of another person, if that person gives the reward to him. By the same token, a man has no wealth but what he owns, but that does not mean that he cannot take possession of what another person gives him of the latter’s own wealth. (Tafseer as -S a’di: Juz’ 25-27, Volume 9, pp. 344-345; bold emphasis mine)

Contrary to the above Muhammadan’s assertion, everything in the verse plainly and emphatically teaches that a person’s deeds will not benefit someone else, whether good or bad.

And:

Allah is Just with the Sinners

Allah the Exalted said…

(Every person is a pledge for that which he has earned.) After Allah mentioned His favor of elevating the offspring to the ranks of their parents, even though the deeds of the former did not qualify them, He affirmed His fairness in that, He does not punish anyone for the mistakes of others…

(Every person is a pledge for that which he has earned.) Therefore, every person will be responsible for his actions. No sin committed by others shall ever be added to one’s load, even if committed by his or her parents or offspring. Allah the Exalted said…

(Every person is a pledge for what he has earned, except those on the Right. In Gardens, they will ask one another about the criminals.) (74:38-41) (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 52:21 https://www.alim.org/quran/tafsir/ibn-kathir/surah/52/21/; emphasis mine)

None shall carry the Burden of Any Other on the Day of Resurrection

Allah the Exalted explained what He has revealed in the Scripture of Ibrahim and Musa…

(That no burdened person shall bear the burden of another.) Meaning, every soul shall carry its own injustices, whether disbelief or sin, and NONE else shall carry its burden of sin, as Allah states…

(And if one heavily laden calls another to (bear) his load, nothing of it will be lifted even though he be near of kin.) (35:18) Allah said…

(And that man can have nothing but what he does.) So just as no soul shall carry the burden of any other, the soul shall ONLY benefit from the good that one earns for himself. As for the Hadith recorded by Muslim in the Sahih, that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said…

<<When a person dies, his deeds will cease except in three cases: from a righteous son who invokes Allah for him, or an ongoing charity after his death, or knowledge that people benefit from.>> These three things are, in reality, a result of one’s own deeds, efforts and actions. For example, a Hadith states…

<<Verily, the best type of provision that one consumes is from what he himself has earned, and one’s offspring are among what he has earned.>> The ongoing charity that one leaves behind, like an endowment, for example, are among the traces of his own actions and deeds. Allah the Exalted said…

(Verily, We give life to the dead, and We record that which they send before (them) and their traces.) (36:12) The knowledge that one spreads among people which they are guided by is among his actions and deeds. A Hadith collected in the Sahih states…

<<Whoever invites to guidance, he will earn as much reward as those who follow him, without decreasing anything out of their own rewards.>> Allah said…

(And that his deeds will be seen.) meaning, on the Day of Resurrection…

(And say: “Do deeds! Allah will see your deeds, and (so will) His Messenger and the believers. And you will be brought back to the All-Knower of the unseen and the seen. Then He will inform you of what you used to do.”) (9:105)

Then Allah will remind you of your actions and recompense you for them in the best manner, good for good and evil for evil. Allah’s statement here…

(Then he will be recompensed with a full and the best recompense.) (Ibid., Q. 53:38 https://www.alim.org/quran/tafsir/ibn-kathir/surah/53/33/; emphasis mine)

Ibn Kathir thinks that quoting a narration of Muhammad, who claimed that the deeds of a person will continue to benefit others even after s/he dies, somehow solves the problem, when in reality this merely reinforces the contradiction inherent in the Islamic tradition.

Besides, nothing stated by Muhammad alleviates the dilemma of the Islamic sources expressly teaching that a person’s deeds will only benefit him AT THE LAST DAY, ON THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT. It is, therefore, irrelevant whether the person’s deeds will affect those on earth long after s/he is dead since these acts will still be ascribed to him/her on the day of judgment, not to someone else.

The issue at hand is the emphatic teaching of the Quran and sunnah that persons will be punished or elevated in the hereafter as a result of the deeds of others. And yet these teachings contradict other explicitly clear and unambiguous statements from these very same sources that, in the hereafter, Allah will not exalt or humiliate individuals because of what others have said or done.     

Therefore, the contradiction remains.

FURTHER READING

ALLAH TORTURES JEWS AND CHRISTIANS IN PLACE OF MUSLIMS

Islam’s Doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement and the Ransoming of Sinners

Who Suffers the Consequence of Sins according to the Qur’an?

Islam and the Punishment of the Innocent

Who suffers loss if Muhammad was wrong?

The (In)Justice of Allah Examined

I proceed from where I left off: JALAL ABUALRUB PROVES MUHAMMAD WAS AN ANTICHRIST.

PAUL

Appealing to the inspired statements of the blessed and holy Apostle of the risen Christ won’t help Abualrub’s deity or prophet either.

Pay careful attention to the context of the verse, which this Muhammadan overlooked:

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” 1 Timothy 2:3-6

Paul affirms that Christ is the one Mediator who offered his life as a ransom for all men so that they might turn to God and be saved through Jesus.

Elsewhere, the blessed Apostle emphasizes the point that believers are saved through Christ from God’s wrath because of his atoning sacrifice on the cross:

“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:” Romans 8:3

“but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” Galatians 4:4-7  

“to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;” Ephesians 1:6-7 

“For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; and to wait for HIS SON from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.” 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10

And Paul explains the reason why the Son himself came to redeem mankind from God’s righteous judgment upon sinners is because he is the One by and for whom all things were created:

“but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” 1 Corinthians 8:6

“who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.” Colossians 1:13-20

Hence, it only makes sense that the Son would personally come to save the very creation that he himself created for his own inheritance.

In this regard, the holy Apostle was merely reiterating the teachings of his risen Lord who stated that he had come into the world to save it by offering his soul as a vicarious sacrifice for sins:

“For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” Mark 10:45

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Matthew 26:26-28

“This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.” John 6:50-58

This by itself proves that Jesus is God in the flesh since the Hebrew Scriptures, which Paul would have known like the back of his hand, are emphatic that no mere human creature can ransom a single human soul, let alone multitudes of human beings:

“none of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: (for the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever; that he should still live for ever, and not see corruption… But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah.” Psalm 49:7-9, 15

For Christ and his beloved Apostle to, therefore, teach that Jesus was able to ransom many human lives is an implicit confession to the Deity of God’s Son and his essential equality to the Father.

In fact, in this very same epistle which Jalal selectively quoted Paul describes the risen Christ in language that can only be ascribed to the true God:

“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, AND Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father AND Jesus Christ OUR LORD… And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath ENABLED me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe ON HIM to life everlasting. Now unto THE KING ETERNAL, IMMORTAL, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” 1 Timothy 1:12-17

“I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; that thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of OUR LORD Jesus Christ: which in HIS times HE shall shew, WHO is the blessed and ONLY Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; WHO ONLY hath IMMORTALITY, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to WHOM be honour and power everlasting. Amen.” 1 Timothy 6:13-16

In the aforementioned passages the holy Apostle affirms that the risen Son is,

The joint Object of prayers and petitions.

The joint Source of all spiritual blessings.

The Lord of all true believers.

The One who strengthens, empowers and enables his servants to endure in the faith.

The Savior who came into the world to display his perfect love, patience and mercy by delivering sinners.

The One who alone is immortal and possesses immortality.

The King of eternity.

The only sovereign Potentate/Ruler.

The King of kings and Lord of lords.

The One dwelling in unapproachable light that cannot be seen.

The One worthy of receiving doxologies or everlasting praise from his creation.

Paul wasn’t the only inspired emissary to identify Christ in this glorious manner. The Apostle John did so as well:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.In him was life; and the life was the light of men.And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not…He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not… And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” John 1:1-5, 8-10, 14

“Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” John 8:12

“Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and FROM the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.” 2 John 1:3

“John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; and FROM Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.” Revelation 1:4-6

“And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. And EVERY CREATURE which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and ALL THAT ARE IN THEM, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, AND UNTO THE LAMB for ever and ever.And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.” Revelation 5:8-14

Notice here how every creature in the entire creation is distinguished from Christ and worships the risen Lord in the exact same manner the Father is worshiped, and for the same exact duration!

If this doesn’t convince even a Muhammadan like Jalal that the inspired Scriptures portray Christ as the unique Son of God who is equal to the Father in essence, glory, power, majesty, honor and worship, then I am afraid nothing else will.

Finally:

“These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.” Revelation 17:14

“And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” Revelation 19:11-16

Now to make sure that Jalal gets the point we only need to remind him that according to God’s Word, the Old Testament writings, and the statements of his prophet, it is God that reigns as Lord of Lords, and who clothes himself with light.

For instance, here is what the God-breathed Scriptures teach:

“For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:” Deuteronomy 10:17

“Bless the Lord, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:” Psalm 104:1-2

“O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.” Psalm 136:3

And now contrast this with Muhammad’s claims who, not only taught that Allah is the light of creation,

Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The parable of His Light is as (if there were) a niche and within it a lamp, the lamp is in glass, the glass as it were a brilliant star, lit from a blessed tree, an olive, neither of the east (i.e. neither it gets sun-rays only in the morning) nor of the west (i.e. nor it gets sun-rays only in the afternoon, but it is exposed to the sun all day long), whose oil would almost glow forth (of itself), though no fire touched it. Light upon Light! Allah guides to His Light whom He wills. And Allah sets forth parables for mankind, and Allah is All-Knower of everything. S. 24:35 Hilali-Khan

But also stated that the Islamic deity hates it when someone describes himself as the king of kings since there is no other king besides Allah:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Apostle said, “The most awful name in Allah’s sight on the Day of Resurrection, will be (that of) a man calling himself Malik Al-Amlak (the king of kings).” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 224 https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=73&translator=1&start=0&number=224)

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, “The most awful (meanest) name in Allah’s sight.” Sufyan said more than once, “The most awful (meanest) name in Allah’s sight is (that of) a man calling himself king of kings.” Sufyan said, “Somebody else (i.e., other than Abu Az-Zinad, a sub-narrator) says: What is meant by ‘The king of kings’ is ‘Shahan Shah.’” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 225 https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=73&translator=1&start=0&number=225)

Abu Huraira reported from Allah’s Messenger so many ahadith and one of them was this that Allah’s Messenger said: The most wretched person in the sight of Allah on the Day of Resurrection and the worst person and target of His wrath would of the person who is called Malik al-Amlak (the King of Kings) for there is no king but Allah. (Sahih Muslim, Book 025, Number 5339 https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=025&translator=2&start=0&number=5339)

With the foregoing in perspective, the worst mistake Jalal made was to misquote the statements of John and Paul since neither of these Spirit-filled Apostles of the true God taught tauheed. Rather, they proclaimed that Jesus Christ is the eternally begotten Son of God who is coequal to the Father in essence, power, majesty, glory and worship.

As such, the contexts of both John 17:3 and 1 Timothy 2:5 prove that Muhammad was an antichrist,

“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.” 1 John 2:22-23

And a false prophet who stands condemned by the true Lord of Creation, Jesus Christ, Muhammad’s God and Judge, and the God and Judge of all creation.

Jalal can thank himself for allowing us this opportunity to expose him, his prophet, his god and his cult, demonstrating that Islam is not the religion of the true God. Rather, it is from the devising and scheming of Satan who raised Muhammad to deceive people from discovering the only true God revealed in the eternal Person of his glorious Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.  

All biblical references taken from Authorized (King James) Version (AV).

  

Muhammadan Jalal Abualrub in his blasphemous tirade against the real Jesus ends up exposing Muhammad as a false prophet and antichrist.

Here is what this Muhammadan wrote:

An Evangelical Extremist wrote: According to the Holy Bible, there is only One true God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Galatians 3:20).

Agreed! John 17:3 quoted Jesus’ statement, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

Also, 1 Timothy 2:5 declares, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” 

It would be rather silly to read these two verses this way, had Jesus been God at any time that is, “And this is life eternal, that they might know me the only true God, and Jesus Christ (myself), whom I hath sent.” Or for the Bible to declare, “For there is one God, and one God between God and men, the God Christ Jesus.” (Monotheism vs Polytheism: Tau`heed vs Tathleeth (Trinity))

Jalal is oblivious to the fact that these verses, when read in their respective contexts, end up exposing Muhammad as a false prophet and antichrist as I am now going to prove.

JOHN’S GOSPEL

John 17 identifies the only true God as the Father of the Lord Jesus who glorifies his Son in the same way that the Son glorifies him:

“These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: as thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. ⁴ I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me…  Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.” John 17:1-8, 24

Since the Muslim scripture denies that Jesus is God’s preexistent and glorious Son, and also rejects the notion of Allah being a spiritual father to anyone (Cf. Q. 5:18; 9:30; 19:88-93), this means that Muhammad’s ilah cannot be the God revealed in Jesus Christ. Rather, Muhammad’s deity is a false god, an idol whom Satan erected in order to deceive people from knowing the only true God of the Holy Bible (Cf. Deuteronomy 13:1-10; Matthew 24:23-25; 2 Corinthians 11:1-4, 13-15; Galatians 1:8-9).  

With that said, notice how Jesus emphatically describes himself as the unique Son of God who had been dwelling alongside of the Father in the same glory and whom the Father has been loving from before the creation of the world. Christ is also clear in stating that he possesses sovereign authority over all flesh and has the power to grant everlasting life to all whom the Father entrusts to his care.  

Now since Jalal and Muhammad were/are flesh, this means that both he and his false prophet are under the sovereign feet of God’s Son who shall reign until he has destroyed all his enemies, including antichrists like Muhammad whom the Devil raised to mislead people away from the true Christ:

“But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” 1 Corinthians 15:20-28

The Son’s granting immortal life and moral incorruption to all who trust him is a theme which is reiterated all throughout this Gospel:

“For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will… Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear THE VOICE OF THE SON OF GOD: and they that hear shall live… Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear HIS VOICE, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” John 5:21, 25, 28-29

“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again AT THE LAST DAY. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up AT THE LAST DAY. The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:37-44

In the above texts, Christ makes the remarkable assertion that he will physically raise all the dead at the last hour, on the last day, by the power of his majestic voice!

There’s more:

“Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I AM THE RESURRECTION, AND THE LIFE: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.” John 11:23-27

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” John 14:6

By claiming to be the Truth, the Resurrection, and the Life who shall resurrect the dead from their tombs at the last day and hour, Jesus was essentially making himself God Almighty in the flesh (even though he is not the Father or the Holy Spirit).

This is further proven from the fact that these are the very functions and titles which the Quran ascribe to Allah alone, as the following verses indicate:

That is because Allah, He is the Truth, and it is He Who gives life to the dead, and it is He Who is Able to do all things. And surely, the Hour is coming, there is no doubt about it, and certainly, Allah will resurrect those who are in the graves. S. 22:6-7 Hilali-Khan

Al-Haqq: The Truly Real

The Truth, the Real, the Really-existing, He whose existence and divinity are true, the One who creates according to the requirements of wisdom, justice, right, rightness, the Necessarily-existing by His own Essence, He whose existence is undeniable. Every reality exists from His essence and nothing has any intrinsic reality except Him.

Al-Haqq is one of the Ninety-Nine Names.

“That is because Allah – He is the Truth, and what you call upon besides Him is falsehood Allah is the All-High, the Most Great.” (31:29)

“On that Day Allah will pay them in full what is due to them, and they will know that Allah is the Clear Truth.” (24:25)…

Al-Bâ’ith: The Raiser

The Raiser, Resurrector. To re-create, like Mu’id; revive; also to send. The One who Quickens mankind after death. To cause something to be.

Al-Ba’ith is one of the Ninety-Nine Names.

“Allah will raise up all those in the graves.” (22:7) (Aisha Bewley, The Divine Names)

Hence, even the Quran confirms that Jesus made statements that no mere creature could ever dare say, since only One who believed himself to be God Almighty in the flesh could speak in such a manner!

To make matters worse for Jalal, Christ also stated that he is the Heir who personally owns everything that belongs to the Father, which includes the kingdom of heaven:

“All things that the Father hath ARE MINE: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.” John 16:15

“Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.” John 18:33-37

Once again, Jesus in John’s Gospel makes statements that directly oppose the Quran, which emphatically denies that Allah has a Son who shares in his sovereign rule over the heavens and earth:

And say: “All the praises and thanks be to Allah, Who has not begotten a son (nor an offspring), and Who has no partner in (His) Dominion, nor He is low to have a Wali (helper, protector or supporter). And magnify Him with all the magnificence, [Allahu-Akbar (Allah is the Most Great)].” S. 17:111

He to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and Who has begotten no son (children or offspring) and for Whom there is no partner in the dominion. He has created everything, and has measured it exactly according to its due measurements. S. 25:2

In fact, the Islamic scripture describes Allah as being the heir that inherits the earth:

Al-Wârith: The Inheritor

The One who inherits and continues after all others have ceased to be; thus all returns to Him. He is the true owner of all.

Al-Warith is one of the Ninety-Nine Names.

“It is We who will inherit the earth and all those on it and They will be returned to Us.” (19:39)

“We will inherit from him the things he is talking about and he will come to Us all alone.” (19:81)

“It is We who give life and cause to die and We are the Inheritor.” (15:23) (Bewley, The Divine Names; emphasis mine)

Allah is even said to be the best of those that receive an inheritance!

And (remember) Zakariya (Zachariah), when he cried to his Lord: “O My Lord! Leave me not single (childless), though You are the Best of the inheritors.” S. 21:91

To say that this is baffling would be a wild understatement.

After all, how can Allah who is supposed to be a uni-personal deity inherit from his creation the very things that he supposedly already owns, and which he is supposed to have graciously bestowed upon his creatures?

It makes sense for a Tri-Personal Godhead to appoint one of the divine Persons to become the Heir of everything that the Triune God created. I.e., the Father, Son and Holy Spirit agreed to appoint the Son as the Inheritor who would receive the creation, which all three divine Persons brought into existence, as his everlasting possession (Cf. Genesis 1:1-2, 26; 2:4-7; Job 33:4; Psalm 33:6; 104:29-30; John 1:1-4, 10, 14; Colossians 1:13-20; Hebrews 1:1-3, 8-12; 3:3-6).

However, it makes absolutely no sense for a monad, for a divine unicity, to inherit anything, when he/it is doing nothing more than inheriting from the very creatures he/it made and who/which gave them all that they possess.  

We will leave it up to Jalal to make sense out of his prophet’s incoherent, unintelligible babble.

In the next installment I show the very Apostle of the risen Christ, whom Jalal mis-cited, also proves that Muhammad was an agent of Satan sent out to deceive the world from knowing the only true God and his beloved Son: JALAL ABUALRUB PROVES MUHAMMAD WAS AN ANTICHRIST PT. 2.

  

The following is an excerpt from Richard P. C. Hanson’s book The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, where he discusses the confusion that existed within the first four centuries of the church in respect to the terms that were employed in expressing the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, namely hypostasis and ousia. Hanson shows the reason for such confusion was due to the fluidity of the words in question, which certain individuals defined contrarily or differently from others and even their opponents. All emphasis will be mine.    

I. Hypostasis and Ousia

We have already had occasion to note that considerable confusion existed about the use of the terms hypostasis and ousia at the period when the Arian Controversy broke out. The surprise of Ossius at the news that not only did Eusebius of Caesarea believe in two ousiai, but that Narcissus of Neronias believed in three,^l and the ambiguous anathema in N against those who believe that the Son is ‘from another hypostasis or ousia than the Father’² are examples of this unfortunate semantic misunderstanding. The search for the Christian doctrine of God in the fourth century was in fact complicated and exasperated by semantic confusion, so that people holding different views were using the same words as those who opposed them, but, unawares, giving them different meanings from those applied to them by those opponents. It was also prolonged and entangled by the involvement in the dispute of issues concerning ecclesiastical jurisdiction and ecclesiastical law which had no intrinsic connection with the original and really important subject of the dispute. This last we shall begin to look at in the next chapter but one. But here we shall examine some examples of the semantic muddle, that is, unrealized ambiguity in the use of words.

It has already been made clear that for many people at the beginning of the fourth century the word hypostasis and the word ousia had pretty well the same meaning. They did not mean, and should not be translated, ‘person’ and ‘substance’, as they were used when at last the confusion was cleared up and these two distinct meanings were permanently attached to these words in theology which dealt with the doctrine of God. In fact for most (but not all) writers in Greek at the beginning of the controversy and for a long time after it had begun, there was no single agreed word available and widely used for what God is as Three in distinction from what he is as One. All pre-Nicenes, Sellers tells us, found difficulty in expressing the Son’s personality.³ The word hypostasis is virtually unknown in Classical Greek in its philosophical sense. It first emerges prominently in a philosophical sense with the Stoic Posidonius (ob. 50 B.C.), and later became a key-word in Platonism. It meant on the whole ‘realization turning into appearance’, but with this distinction that to Stoics each thing counted as non-existent before its realization, whereas to the Platonists (that is the neo-Platonists), the ground of the existence of each thing before its realization is ‘more than existing’.⁴ The word occurs five times in the New Testament, at 2 Cor. 9:4 and 11:17, where it means ‘confidence’ (i.e. psychological support), at Hebrews 1:3, where it denotes God’s being (NEB) or nature (RSV, JB), 3:14, where it again means ‘confidence’, and 11:1 where it means the assurance (RSV, ‘what gives substance to’ NEB, ‘guarantee’ JB) of what we hope for, again with the idea of ‘ support’ prominent. The only strictly theological use is that of Hebrews 1:3, where the Son is described as ‘the impression of the nature’ of God. The word also occurs twenty times in the LXX, but only one of them can be regarded as theologically significant, even though several Christian writers of the fourth century tried to make out that they all were so. At Wisdom 16:21 the writer speaks of God’s hypostasis, meaning his nature; and no doubt this is why Hebrews uses the term ‘impression of his nature’ (charakter tes hyposteos autou).⁵ Prestige points out that a double meaning of hypostasis can be found according as its significance is derived from the middle voice of the cognate verb, hyphistemi, or from the active voice of the verb. In the former case it means that which underlies (which could suggest ‘substance’), and in the latter that which gives support (which would suggest individual entity).⁶ He thinks that the second sense is the normal one in the theological discourse of our period, so that the emphasis came to be laid not on content but on individuality, whereas ‘ousia means a single object of which the individuality is disclosed by means of internal analysis’.⁷ But we must remember that for at least the first half of the period 318-381, and in some cases considerably later, ousia and hypostasis are used as virtual synonyms, not in one sense only but in two. Prestige is always apt, in his eagerness to see a continuous inviolate tradition of Trinitarian orthodoxy, to read later meanings, and later harmonizations, into earlier texts. Stead notes that hypostasis is used by some writers who appear deliberately to avoid the word ousia, though they would regard the words as synonymous (for instance Alexander of Alexandria and Cyril of Jerusalem), because ousia does not occur m the Bible, whereas hypostasis does.⁸

Stead has devoted a comprehensive treatise to the concept of ‘substance’ (ousia) in his book, Divine Substance. The word has a wide variety of meanings: existence, category or status, substance stuff or material, form, definition, truth.⁹ The expression ‘beyond ousia‘ (epekeina tes ousias) is found often, but in several different meanings, when applied to God, beyond material substance, beyond created (and angelic) substance, beyond intelligible substance, beyond definition.¹⁰ Some writers do of course find it necessary or convenient describe God as ousia, among them Origen and Athanasius.¹¹ Later in the fourth century it became conventional to distinguish God’s substance, ousia, what he is in himself and his ‘energies’, that is God as we experience and meet him, and to hold that the first is unknowable to us, but not, of course the second. This was the alternative taken when the practice of distinguishing the Logos or Son as that which can experience multiplicity and change in the Godhead from the simple immutable Father was seen to be unsatisfactory.¹² It was also thought possible to distinguish the substance of God, in the Aristotelian tradition, from his properties, which are distinct from the substance but invariable, and from his accidents which are distinct and variable, though some (e.g. Athanasius and many Arians as well) believed that God’s substance was without accidents.¹³ Tertullian at the turn of the second to the third centuries had already used the Latin word substantia (substance) of God and used it in the most direct and literal way. For him God consist of spirit (spiritus), a kind of thinking gas. God therefore had a body and indeed was located at the outer confines of space. He is apparently immeasurable but not infinite. It was possible for Tertullian to think of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit sharing this substance, so that the relationship of the Three is, in a highly refined sense, corporeal. His metaphysic (if that is the right word for it) borrowed directly from Stoicism.¹⁴ He can use the expression unius substantiae (‘of one substance’). This has led some scholars to see Tertullian as an exponent of Nicene orthodoxy before Nicaea, and even to claim that the West, represented by Tertullian, Novatian and Dionysius of Rome, had always upheld the consubstantiality of the Son. But this is a far from plausible theory. Tertullian’s materialism is, when seen at all closely, a totally different thing from any ideas of ousia or homoousios canvassed during the fourth century. His conception of substance would have struck most Eastern theologians as possessing precisely those faults which made many of them recoil from the use of the word homoousios. It implied a corporeal conception of God. Tertullian may well have supplied the West with its Trinitarian vocabulary; he certainly did not supply the East with its Trinitarian theology.¹⁵

The state of affairs as regards the use of hypostasis and ousia at the outset of the search for the doctrine of God occasioned by the ArianControversy can therefore be stated thus: several alternative ways oftreating these terms were prevalent. They could be regarded as synonymous and used either to describe what God is as, Three whathe is ‘as One; or hypostasis could be used to describe the Persons of theGodhead and ousia either ignored or rejected; or hypostasis could beused for ‘distinct existence’ and ousia for ‘nature’; or a general state ofindecision and uncertainty as to how either of them should be used could exist in a writer’s mind. We can find examples of all these alternatives. Origen certainly did not apply the word homoousios to the Son and did not teach that the Son is ‘from the ousia‘ of the Father.¹⁶ He used hypostasis and ousia freely as interchangeable terms to describe the Son’s distinct reality within the Godhead,¹⁷ but he did not usually employ ousia to describe the substance of God. He taught that there were three hypostases within the Godhead. Ritter indeed thinks that Origen must have contributed to the doctrine found in Plotinus of three hypostases flowing from the Godhead without diminishing it.^I8 If we are to believe Athanasius, Dionysius of Rome writing in Greek against Sabellianism said that it is wrong to divide the divine monarchy ‘into three sorts of potentiality and separated hypostases and three Godheads’; people who hold this in effect produce three gods and ‘three hypostases alien to each other entirely separated’.¹⁹ Gregory Thaumaturgus could describe the Godhead as ‘three in aspect but one in substance’ (hypostasis).²⁰ Pierius had apparently referred to the Father and the Son as two ousiai rather than two hypostases.²¹

Eusebius of Caesarea appears to accept the equation of hypostasis and ousia in the anathema of N quite readily in his explanation of why he accepted that creed.²² He uses ousia to mean substance several times in the course of the same explanation, and, as we have seen, was, at least before the Council of Nicaea, accustomed to regard the Son as the eikon (mirror) or osme (perfume) of the Father’s ousia. Eusebius of Nicomedia, as quoted by Marcellus (who is being quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea) said, concerning the relation of the Son to the Father, ‘the image and that of which it is the image are not of course thought of as one and the same thing; but there are two ousiai and two facts (or ” things”, pragmata) and two powers, just as there are so many different names for them’.²³ Alexander of Alexandria is no less ambiguous in his use of terms than others. He does not use the word ousia, but instead uses hypostasis for both ‘Person’ and ‘substance’, or, to be more accurate, he does not make a distinction between hypostasis = ‘Person’ and hypostasis= ‘substance’. When he quotes Hebrews 1:3, ‘impression of the hypostasis‘ (nature, substance), he cannot think that the Son is an impression of the Father as Father.²⁴ He can also say that the Lord ‘does not reveal that natures which are two in hypostasis are one’,²⁵ and on several occasions he uses hypostasis to mean the (distinct) existence of the Son.²⁶ We have already seen that Arius is violently opposed to using homoousios, and spoke readily of the hypostases of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.²⁷ He did not object to using the word ousia of God, however. In Constantine’s Letter to Arius of 333 he quotes Arius as saying that there is ‘One God .. .’ and ‘an unbeginning and unending Logos of his ousia’.²⁸ Athanasius describes him as teaching that ‘the Logos is alien and unlike in all respects to the Father’s ousia and propriety’ (idiotetos).²⁹ And in De Synodis¹⁵ Athanasius quotes Arius as saying that ‘the Father is alien in ousia to the Son’ and that the Son does not know his own ousia, as well as asserting that the Son ‘has nothing in the structure (hypostasis) of his propriety (i.e. that which is peculiar to him) that is peculiar (idion) to God’ and that the hypostases of Father and Son are ‘incommunicable’ (anepimiktoi heatois). Boularand accuses Arius of confusing ‘substance’ and ‘Person’³⁰ and of teaching three dissimilar ousiai when he said that the hypostases were incommunicable.³¹ If he did, he was certainly not alone in this error. But in fact it seems likely that he was one of the few during this period who did not confuse the two. No doubt he believed that the Father and the Son were of unlike substance, but he did not say so directly. He said instead that their hypostases, distinct individual realities, were different in kind and in rank. Asterius certainly taught that the Father and the Son were distinct and different in their hypostases,³² that the Son is not Son ‘because of the peculiarity of the ousia‘ (idion tes ousias);³³ he equates ousia and physis (nature);³⁴ he said that there were three hypostases.³⁵ But he also described the Son as ‘the exact image of the ousia and counsel and glory and power’ of the Father.³⁶ Once again we find a writer who clearly did not confuse ousia and hypostasis even though he thought that the resemblance of the Son to the Father was closer than Arius conceived. We can see therefore that the statement of Bethune-Baker that it was not till the Council of Alexandria in 362 that anyone regularly regarded hypostasis as anything more than a synonym for ousia is not borne out by the facts.³⁷

It is however likely that when Narcissus of Neronias at the Council of Antioch in 325 declared to Ossius that he believed in three ousiai he was equating ousia with hypostasis.³⁸ If we can trust the translation, the doctrinal statement of the Council of Antioch of 325 said that the Son was the image of the Father as Father.³⁹ It in fact is an echo of Heb, 1:3 where the Son is described as the impression (character) of the Father’s hypostasis and this must mean his nature.⁴⁰ Ossius, who was one of those responsible for this doctrinal manifesto, must have been sorely puzzled by the intricacies of Greek theological terms. He was evidently surprised and shocked at hearing that Eusebius of Caesarea believed in two, and Narcissus in three, ousiai, which suggests that he thought that ousia should mean ‘substance’ or ‘nature’. At Antioch he subscribed to a manifesto which uses hypostasis to mean ‘substance’ or ‘nature’; he was shortly to subscribe to N, which apparently (but not quite certainly) identifies hypostasis and ousia; and, as we shall see⁴¹ he was eighteen years later to put his signature to a document which proclaimed that there was only one hypostasis in God.

The Creed of Nicaea itself made three statements involving the word ousia. It declared that the Son was ‘from the ousia‘ (ek tes ousias) of the Father. It said that he was homoousios with the Father, and it condemned those who taught that the Son was ‘of a different hypostasis or ousia from the Father’. The subject of homoousios will be dealt with a little later.⁴² The claim that the Son was ek tes ousias, (from the ousia) of the Father is an interesting one. Origen had rejected it.⁴³ According to Athanasius (De Deeret 25) Theognostus had used this expression of the Son. Eusebius of Caesarea can say that the Son is ‘from the Father’s ingenerate nature and inexpressible ousia‘, but he very soon qualifies this statement, warning against materializing interpretations.⁴⁴ Eusebius of Nicomedia in his Letter to Paulinus of Tyre had apparently rejected the expression ‘from the ousia‘, denying that the Son had any connection with the Father’s ousia. For him ousia means ‘nature or ‘rank’ or ‘metaphysical status’.⁴⁵ Stead thinks however that in N the expression ‘from the ousia‘ was meant more to determine that the Son was not from any external source, but from God, and did not necessarily denote equal status. On the anathema in N, Stead argues that it too was not intended to establish equality of status between Father and Son, but once again to ensure that the Son was not derived from some source other than the Father. He produces evidence from Tertullian, Irenaeus, Theognostus and Methodius that they recognised three alternative possibilities for the origin of the Son, from non-existence, from some external source and from the Father. He concludes from this that this anathema did not in effect do away with a doctrine of three hypostases.⁴⁶ It may be noted that the only way in which such an argument can be supported is the assumption that in this anathema hypostasis and ousia were regarded as synonymous, and that it was meant to condemn the view that the Son did not derive from the Father’s nature or substance (ousia). Prestige seems to take this view when he says that in this anathema ousia means ‘individual objective source’,⁴⁷ though this last expression is itself a rather ambiguous one. Finally we may note that Ossius was not the only person confused by the ambiguity of these terms. The Emperor Constantine appears to have been so also. In his Letter to Arius of 333 he says of Arius and himself:

‘You think it is right to subordinate the ‘alien hypostasis‘, and indeed your belief is mistaken. But I recognize that the fulness of that power which is supreme and which runs through everything is the single ousia of the Father and the Son. If then you deprive him from whom nothing at all can be removed, not even in the thought of those who are not serious, and imagine additional properties and in short define far-fetched marks of recognition (gnorismata zeteseon) for him to whom (God) has granted entire eternity from himself, and incorruptible intellect (or thought, ennoia) and has allotted belief in his immortality both through himself and through the Church -‘

the Emperor breaks off in disgust.⁴⁸ The translation can only be approximate because of the clumsiness and vagueness of Constantine’s language. If it means anything it means that there is only hypostasis (= ousia) in the Godhead, and indeed the anathema in N would fit well with this view. Some have seen in this a coherent theology, akin to that of Marcellus of Ancyra (who was soon to be deposed for holding this type of doctrine). But it is more likely that Constantine, who is writing in Greek, a language with which he was not well acquainted, and who cannot amid all his preoccupations have had opportunity to make any profound study of theology or philosophy, is simply floundering in water too deep for him. Like Ossius, his agent, he was defeated by the semantic conclusion.

Even those who distinguished hypostasis, meaning distinct reality, from ousia, meaning ‘nature’ or even ‘substance’, must not be thought to have anticipated the later meanings of those terms given to them in the second half of the century by the great Cappadocian theologians. The concept of what each Person of the Trinity is in his existence and proper form distinct from the others had not yet been distinguished from the concept of what all of them were as full and equal (or even as partial and unequal) sharers of the Godhead. Later theology would not have said that the Son was a mirror of the Person (hypostasis) of the Father, i.e. of the Father qua Father. Not only had no universally accepted term been achieved for the concept of what we would now call the ‘Persons’ of the Trinity (unsatisfactory though that word in certain respects is), but the concept itself had barely dawned on the consciousness of theologians. A more authentically Trinitarian theology had to be found, as It was eventually found by Athanasius and the Cappadocians, before the idea of ‘Person’ in this sense could reach maturity. (Hanson The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 [T&T Clark Ltd, Edinburgh, Latest impression 1997], Part II. Period of Confusion, Chapter 7: Semantic Confusion, pp. 181-190; bold emphasis mine)