Are All Muslims Going to Enter Hell?

by

 Bassam Zawadi

 

 

Acknowledgement: Much gratitude to Shaykh Jalal Abu Al Rub for his valuable consultation.

 

Does Islam teach that all Muslims are going to enter hell, just as some missionaries like Sam Shamoun (*,*,*) claim? This issue will be explored and investigated in this article.

Allah says:

 Surah 19:71-72

 

Pickthall	There is not one of you but shall approach it. That is a fixed ordinance of thy Lord. Then We shall rescue those who kept from evil, and leave the evil-doers crouching there.
Yusuf Ali	Not one of you but will pass over it: this is, with thy Lord, a Decree which must be accomplished. But We shall save those who guarded against evil, and We shall leave the wrong-doers therein, (humbled) to their knees.
Hilali-Khan	There is not one of you but will pass over it (Hell); this is with your Lord; a Decree which must be accomplished. Then We shall save those who use to fear Allah and were dutiful to Him. And We shall leave the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers, etc.) therein (humbled) to their knees (in hell).
Shakir	And there is not one of you but shall come to it; this is an unavoidable decree of your Lord. And We will deliver those who guarded (against evil), and We will leave the unjust therein on their knees.
Sher Ali	And there is not one of you but will come to it. This is an absolute decree of thy Lord. And WE shall save the righteous, and shall leave the wrongdoers therein, on their knees.
Arberry	Not one of you there is, but he shall go down to it; that for thy Lord is a thing decreed, determined. Then We shall deliver those that were godfearing; and the evildoers We shall leave there, hobbling on their knees.
Palmer	There is not one of you who will not go down to it,- that is settled and decided by thy Lord. Then we will save those who fear us; but we will leave the evildoers therein on their knees.
Rodwell	No one is there of you who shall not go down unto it - This is a settled decree with thy Lord - Then will we deliver those who had the fear of God, and the wicked will we leave in it on their knees.
Sale	There shall be none of you but shall descend into the same [hell]: [This] is an established decree upon thy Lord. Afterwards we will deliver those who shall have been pious, but we will leave the ungodly therein on their knees.

 

As we can see from the above, there are different opinions on translating the word waariduha. There are three common opinions regarding how one should interpret this verse.

First Opinion: The verse states that all people, including believers, would enter hell

This is the opinion of several scholars and a number of companions. We could see one of the companions being reported in Musnad Ahmad as stating that this verse is referring to “entering.” (The chain is Saheeh, according to hadith scholar Ahmad Shakir, Volume 6, no. 84, Source)

However, those who hold to this position would say that even though the righteous believers (not those sinful ones who would be punished temporarily) would enter hell, they shall not feel pain. This is because the fire would be cool and safe to them, just as it was for Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him), for that is what the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said. (Al Bayhaqi said the isnad to this hadeeth is Hasan in his Shu’b Al-Eemaan, Volume 1, page 282; Al-Mundhiri said the men in the chain are trustworthy in his Al-Targheeb wal-Tarheeb, Volume 4, page 317; Ibn Katheer said the hadeeth is hasan in his Al-Bidaayah Wal-Nihaayah, Volume 2, page 93; Al-Haithami said the men in the chain are trustworthy in his Majma’ Al-Zawaaid, Volume 10, no. 363; Al-Haithami Al-Makki, in his Al-Zawaajir, Volume 2, page 247, said that the isnaad is Hasan) However, Shaykh Al-Albani has rightly declared this narration to be weak in his Silsila Al-Ahaadeeth Al-Da’eefa, no. 4761 due to the presence of an unknown narrator in the chain. (Source)

Also, this opinion is weak since it contradicts authentic hadeeths, which state that there would be those who would not enter hell. An example is the following hadeeth: 

Saheeh Muslim

Book 031, Number 6089:

Jabir reported that a slave of Hatib came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) complaining against Hatib and said: Hatib will definitely go to hell. (But) Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: You tell a lie; he would not get into that for he had taken part in Badr and in (the expedition of) Hudaibiya.  

The above citation demonstrates that some would not enter hell, so how could it be that the Qur’anic verse is stating otherwise? 

However, this opinion of “entering” could be correct depending on one’s intention. This will be clarified as we continue reading on.  

Second Opinion: The verse is only speaking about disbelievers and not believers

Those who adhere to this opinion would base this on Qur’anic verses such as: 

Surah 21:98-103 

Surely you (O mushrikin) and your deities that you worship besides Allah shall be the fuel of hell; therein you shall all enter (waridoona). If those deities would have been true gods, they would not have gotten there; but there they shall abide forever. In there, sobbing will be their lot, and they will not be able to hear anything else. Certainly those for whom the good reward from Us has preceded them will be kept far away from it. They shall not hear even its slightest sound, and they shall dwell forever in the midst of whatever their souls desire. The time of Great Terror (Day of Judgement) will not grieve them, and the angels will receive them with greetings: “This is your Day that you were promised.”

These scholars would argue that there would be those who would be kept away from hell while at the same time understanding the word waariduha in Surah 19 to mean “entering.” Furthermore, the verse states that they won’t even hear its slightest sound, and if all Muslims were to enter hell then they would have heard its sound. 

However, this opinion is weak since it contradicts authentic hadeeths, which state that even believers would do wurood to hell. 

Third And Strongest Opinion: The verse is stating that all people would pass by hell and be exposed to it 

Scholars (for example, see Al-Tha’labi’s commentary on Surah 27:8) who held this opinion said that waarid could mean to “see” or “come close to” according to certain verses in the Qur’an (12:19; 28:23) and could thus be linguistically and accurately applied to Surah 19:71 as well.

Let’s take the example of Surah 28:23: 

And when he came unto the water of Midian he found there a whole tribe of men 

Walamma warada maa madyana wajada AAalayhi ommatan mina alnnasi 

This verse talks about the water source, which was a well (the same example extends to a spring). Musa warada, the water of Midian, (i.e., reached the side of the well), which is above the actual well where the water is (they need ropes and a bucket to lift the water).  He did not enter the water, but he was standing on the piece of land above the mouth of the well below the earth since it is a hole.  So, he did wurud, but in this case, it meant he was standing on the land above the well. 

The same reasoning applies to the sirat (i.e., the bridge to cross over hell). It is above (on the upper borders) hell, but in this case, the size of the sirat is far smaller than hell’s. So people who cross above hell do wurud in the way one does a well, but are able to see with their eyes the horror of hell beneath their feet, especially since the size of hell is unimaginably gigantic.  Those who do not find its torment, i.e., they do not get tormented by it, they are Mub`adun (taken away) from it as stated in Surah 21:101, i.e., there is a distance (bu`d) between them and hell. Just as one walks on the piece of land above a well, he does wurud to it (to its borders) but is also away from it (i.e., does not enter the well itself).  So the believers will be walking on the sirat, which is at the upper border of hell, doing wurud of it without entering it (except for those Muslim sinners who are to be punished temporarily). They will not hear the crushing sound of its burning and winds, as stated in Surah 21:102, but still, they will be able to see its tip. This is affirmed in the authentic hadeeths where we read that people would be crossing the bridge (sirat) and MIGHT be snatched and dragged into hell OR NOT, while some of them wouldn’t be snatched. (Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 577; Saheeh Muslim, Book 001, Number 0349). 

The next step is determining those leaving the vicinity (i.e., sudur). Some would be leaving the vicinity, while the rest would stay. The Prophet (peace be upon him), in an authentic hadeeth reported by Al-Tirmidhi, said:

 

‏أن ‏ ‏عبد الله بن مسعود ‏ ‏حدثهم قال ‏

‏قال رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏يرد ‏ ‏الناس النار ثم ‏ ‏يصدرون ‏ ‏منها بأعمالهم فأولهم كلمح البرق ثم كالريح ثم ‏ ‏كحضر ‏ ‏الفرس ثم كالراكب في ‏ ‏رحله ‏ ‏ثم كشد الرجل ثم كمشيه

 

Abdullah ibn Mas'ud said:

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, Mankind will yarid (i.e., do wurood) the fire and then depart from it because of their deeds, the first of them like a flash of lighting, the next like the wind, the next like a horse’s gallop, the next like one riding on his pack-saddle, the next like a man’s running, the next like his walking.” 

This hadeeth demonstrates how there will be people who would leave the vicinity of hell due to their righteous deeds, while some would remain in hell. Similarly, when there is a spring, and this is also obvious as an example, one does not actually go into the middle of the spring itself, but at the shore - making wurud - then when he is done fulfilling his need, he makes sudur, i.e., he leaves its vicinity without actually entering it.

The sirat is placed above hell like its roof, and the roof of the house is part of it, so if one is lifted to the roof without going inside the house and going up the stairs, he is still technically inside the house. He sees it bigger than him under his feet, but he does not necessarily know what the people in the rooms of the house are doing, what they are facing, or what they are feeling. So the sirat is above hell on the top of its border, and the wurud and sudur is done by walking on the sirat. One may technically claim that the sirat is in hell, for just as Shaykh Al-Albani said: 

المرور على الصراط هو دخول في النار

Crossing on sirat is entering into the fire. (Source)

So, if one wants to claim that entering hell means crossing the sirat, which is above hell and could technically be argued to be in hell, then that is okay. However, to claim that entering hell is to go deep inside into hell then is contrary to the evidence.

We also need to ask ourselves what the purpose of the sirat is if all people will still go inside the fire? The purpose of the sirat is that the people who are not going to be burned walk on the sirat above the fire to be able to see its horrors and be shielded from being burned in it because they are on the sirat and will pass it very quickly.

Further evidence that not everyone would enter hell is the following hadeeth:

Saheeh Muslim

Book 031, Number 6090: 

Umm Mubashshir reported that she heard Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying in presence of Hafsa: God willing, the people of the Tree would never enter the fire of Hell one amongst those who owed allegiance under that. She said: Allah’s Messenger, why not? He scolded her. Hafsa said: And there is none amongst you but shall have to pass over that (narrow Bridge). Thereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, has said: We would rescue those persons who are God-conscious and we would leave the tyrants to their fate there (xix. 72). 

Notice that the Prophet (peace be upon him) explicitly said there would be those who would not enter hell. Hafsa appealed to the Qur’anic verse in question as an objection. Clearly, she appeared to have understood the verse as referring to “entering”. However, the Prophet (peace be upon him) quickly clarified there would be those who would be saved.

This makes complete sense in light of the hadeeth we just cited, which states that there would be those who cross the sirat with some being snatched down into hell, while others wouldn’t be snatched down into hell.

However, there is one hadeeth that some scholars have used to prove that the Qur’anic verse is speaking about actually entering into hell from Saheeh Bukhari:

Volume 8, Book 78, Number 650 

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Apostle said, Any Muslim who has lost three of his children will not be touched by the fire except that which will render Allah’s oath fulfilled. 

The phrase “except that which will render Allah’s oath fulfilled,” according to the majority of scholars, is about Allah’s promise that everyone would do wurood to hell. 

Another version of this hadith found in Saheeh Bukhari as well states: 

Volume 2, Book 23, Number 342: 

Narrated Abu Huraira: 

The Prophet said, “No Muslim whose three children died will go to the Fire except for Allah’s oath.” 

So here we find that the first version states “touched by the Fire,” which in Arabic transliterates to tamussuhu al naar, while the other version states “go to the fire,” which in Arabic transliterates to yaliju al naar. The root derivative of yaliju is wulooj, which most commonly refers to entry. 

Now, if both of these phrases are indeed connected to Allah’s oath, they must be understood in light of wurood in the Qu’ranic verse. However, some proponents of the view that the Qur’an is speaking about people entering hell argue that tamussuhu al naar and yaliju al naar supports their position since they linguistically mean direct contact with and entering into the fire. However, is that necessarily the case? 

In regards to the “touched by the Fire” narration, the great Maliki scholar Ibn Abdul Barr says:  

المسيس حقيقته في اللغة المباشرة وقد يحتمل على الاتساع أن يكون القرب

According to the language, feeling literally means direct contact, and extending it to mean nearness is possible. (Ibn Abdul Barr, Al-Tamheed, Volume 6, page 353)

So, as we can see, linguistically speaking, “feeling” does not necessarily have to imply actual physical touching and could indicate nearness, which is in perfect harmony with the position we have been laying out so far. Even in English, we don’t necessarily understand “feeling” as a physical contract. One may feel the presence of something through intuitive awareness. One may experience the feeling of the fire by being close to it and seeing it, for instance. 

So that means that we could understand this hadith as saying that one who lost his three children would not experience the feeling of hell unless Allah’s oath of having it occur was fulfilled, though I don’t favor this position. 

As for the second version, which states, “go to the fire,” Ibn Hajar states that one of the opinions of the meaning of wulooj is: 

فالمراد بالولوج الورود وهو المرور على النار

The meaning of wulooj is wurood , and that is passing by the fire. (Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, Fathul Bari, Volume 3, page 119) 

Badr al-Din al-'Ayni in his commentary on Saheeh Bukhari cites Al-Khattabi as saying: 

أي لا يدخل النار ليعاقبه بها ولكنه يجوز عليها فلا يكون ذلك إلا بقدر ما يبر الله به قسمه والقسم مضمر

 One [who is destined to be saved from hell] will not enter the fire to be punished in it; rather he would cross over it. This will not happen except by the decree of Allah’s loyalty to His oath and the oath is implied [This (passing over hell) will only last to the extent of Allah fulfilling His oath (that all shall pass over hell); the oath is implied (i.e., not explicit)]. (Badr al-Din al-'Ayni, 'Umdat Al-Qaari', Volume 12, page 190) 

Just in case one states that this is an act of desperation and violates the definition of yalij, let’s take a look at this narration: 

‏ أنس بن مالك ‏ ‏قال ‏قال رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏لا ‏ ‏يلج ‏ ‏حائط ‏ ‏القدس ‏ ‏مدمن الخمر ولا العاق لوالديه ولا ‏ ‏المنان ‏ ‏عطاءه

  

Anas ibn Malik said: 

The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: They will not yalij the walls of Quds (i.e. paradise) those who are addicted to alcohol, disobedient to their parents or brag about their generosity. (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith no. 12881; The word Quds technically means “blessed area”, however we know that this is referring to paradise due to other narrations that we have such as the one narrated by Al-Bazzar, which states لا يلج جنات الفردوس “he will not enter the gardens of Firdaws”. Also see Shaykh Al-Albani, Silsila Al-Ahaadeeth Al-Saheeha, hadith no. 2161.) 

Now, obviously, yalij does not mean that one would enter inside the walls of paradise but that one would pass through them into paradise. Shaykh Al-Albani declared the chain of this narration to be weak in his Silsila Al-Ahaadeeth Al-Saheeha, hadith no. 673; however, said it has a supporting witness from an authentic chain in Ibn Khuzayma’s book Kitab Al-Tawheed. 

However, this narration’s authenticity isn’t essential here. It is important to see that it is grammatically possible to use the word yalij to mean “pass by.” 

So this means that we could understand the hadith as saying that one who lost his three children would not pass by (over) hell unless Allah’s oath of having it done so was fulfilled, though I again personally don’t favor this position. 

Scholars have had several ways of understanding this narration, such as speaking about Allah’s oath. 

Ibn Abdul Barr said: 

وقد يحتمل أن يكون قوله صلى الله عليه و سلم ( ( الا تحلة القسم ) ) استثناء منقطعا بمعنى لكن تحلة القسم وهذا معروف في اللغة وإذا كان ذلك كذلك فقوله لن تمسه النار إلا تحلة القسم أي لا تمسه النار أصلا كلاما تاما ثم ابتدأ الا تحلة القسم أي لكن تحلة القسم لا بد منها في قول الله عز و جل وان منكم إلا واردها وهي الجواز على الصراط أو الرؤية

 And it is possible that the Prophet’s statement “except that which will render the oath fulfilled” is an interrupted exception [i.e., it does not happen to begin with]. This is something known in the language. If that is the case, his statement “will not be touched by the fire except that which will render the oath fulfilled” means that the fire won’t even touch him. Then he began another statement with the phrase “except that which will render the oath fulfilled,” meaning that; however, the oath is fulfillment is bound to occur according to Allah’s statement wa inn minkum illa waariduha . It pertains to crossing over on the sirat or seeing it (i.e., of hell). (Ibn Abdul Barr, Al-Tamheed, Volume 6, page 361) 

In light of this (and this is the position that I favor), we could understand the hadith as saying that one who lost his three children wouldn’t feel the fire or enter into the fire at all (abiding by the literal meaning of tamassuhu and yaliju). However, Allah’s oath that everyone would do wurood to hell must be fulfilled. Allah’s promise of wurood , as we said, refers to crossing over hell on the sirat , and the following narration strongly supports this: 

من مات له ثلاثة من الولد لم يبلغوا الحنث لم يرد النار إلا عابر سبيل

Whoever dies leaving [behind] three children who haven’t reached the age of puberty wouldn’t yarid the fire except as a passerby (i.e., crossing the sirat just as the narrator of this hadith clarified). (Al-Mundhiri in his Al-Targheeb wal-Tarheeb, Volume 3, no. 120 said that the isnad is okay and that it has a lot of supporting witnesses; Shaykh Al-Albani said that the hadeeth is hasan in his Saheeh Al-Targheeb, no. 2001)  

Some opined that the phrase “except that which will render the oath fulfilled” is just a linguistic method of expression emphasizing the lack of severity of the whole ordeal. Al-Alusi states: 

فكأنه قيل : لم ير النار إلا قليلا لأن الله تعالى أخبر بورود كل أحد إياها ولا بد من وقوع ما أخبر به ولولا ذلك لجاز أن لا يراها أصلا .

It is as if it is said: He won’t see the fire except for a while because Allah All Mighty said that everyone would do wurood to it (i.e. the fire), and that is something inevitable. If it weren’t for that, it would have been possible for him [one who is not destined to enter hell] to not see it [hell] at all. (Al-Alusi, Rooh Al-Ma'aani, Volume 12, page 43; Also see Imam Al-Subki, Tabaqaat Al-Shafi'ya, Volume 2, page 117 & Shaykh Muhammad Ameen Al-Shanqeeti, Adwaa' Al-Bayaan, Volume 4, page 39)  

Furthermore, it’s possible to interpret the oath as meaning that there would be people crossing the bridge and then getting snatched into hell if their deeds are not good enough. That is a promise that would be fulfilled. Certain people could possibly avoid crossing the bridge and not get snatched into hell; however, if they don’t meet Allah’s requirement, they could end up crossing it and then getting snatched down into hell. 

Finally, one may ask what the whole point of the sirat is. Suppose there are people who are bound to enter paradise and not go into hell at all. Why doesn’t Allah just automatically put these Muslims in paradise without having them become exposed to hell by passing over it and seeing it? 

The answer is simple, really; it brings the Muslims more joy and satisfaction that they have made the right decisions in this life to avoid hell. It also gives them the relief they were craving, knowing that they have finished the whole trial and judgment ordeal. After they pass over hell, they would appreciate Allah even more for shielding them with His mercy from being punished in hell. 

In conclusion, we have examined the different opinions surrounding this topic and demonstrated that the strongest opinion is that waariduha in the verse refers to crossing over hell on the sirat. If one wishes to say that Muslims would enter hell with the intended meaning that since the sirat is over hell and could technically be considered inside of it, then this is valid. However, we have found the opinion that “entering” hell with the actual meaning that one would be inside of it in the same sense as the kuffar (despite not being harmed by the fire) is indeed a weak opinion and doesn’t fit in with the authentic hadeeth that we have cited.

Truth as the Governing Principle of Qur’ānic Confirmation

 A Linguistic Analysis on “بِالْحَقِّ” in Āl-ʿImrān (3:3)

The verse, “He has sent down upon you the Book with truth (بِالْحَقِّ), confirming what is before it, and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel” (Āl ʿImrān 3:3), is often cited in interfaith discourse as evidence that the Qur’ān offers an unqualified endorsement of previous scriptures in their present form. Yet such a reading flattens the Arabic, ignoring the very word that structures the entire meaning of the passage: بِالْحَقِّ. A linguistically grounded reading, rooted in balāghah (rhetoric), grammar, and semantic precision, reveals that this single phrase does not merely decorate the verse; it governs it.

At the level of syntax, بِالْحَقِّ (a prepositional phrase, جار ومجرور) functions as a ḥāl, a circumstantial qualifier, describing the state in which the Qur’ān was revealed. This is not a trivial observation. In Arabic rhetoric, the ḥāl restricts and conditions the action it accompanies. Thus, the revelation of the Book is not presented as a neutral descent, but as one enveloped, defined, and governed by truth. Consequently, the subsequent participle مُصَدِّقًا (“confirming”) cannot be read as an absolute or unconditional affirmation; rather, it is a confirmation operating within the condition of truth. In other words, it is tasdīq muqayyad bi’l-ḥaqq, a confirmation restricted by truth, not a blanket validation.

The rhetorical ordering reinforces this meaning. The placement of بِالْحَقِّ before مُصَدِّقًا is a deliberate act of semantic steering. In balāghah, advancing the ḥāl foregrounds its governing role, forcing the reader to interpret what follows through its lens. The verse does not say, “confirming, and by the way, in truth.” Rather, it declares: “revealed with truth; therefore confirming.” The حال frames the فعل; the معيار (criterion) precedes the act.

Moreover, the preposition “بـ” here carries the nuance of ilṣāq (inseparable attachment). The Qur’ān is not merely accompanied by truth; it is bound to it, inseparable from it. Truth is not an external standard the Qur’ān consults; it is the very substance it embodies. This is further intensified by the definiteness of الْحَقِّ. The verse does not speak of “a truth” (ḥaqqin), but “the Truth”, a known, absolute, objective reality. The معيار is fixed and transcendent; it is not subject to historical transmission, communal memory, or ecclesiastical authority.

Within this framework, the participle مُصَدِّقًا itself functions as a secondary ḥāl, or a closely tied descriptive state, producing a layered construction: the Qur’ān is revealed in truth and, within that truth, confirming. This dual structure yields a precise theological implication: the Qur’ān’s confirmation of previous revelation is not independent, but derivative of its truth-nature. It affirms what remains aligned with the original divine message and, by that same standard, exposes what has been altered, obscured, or fabricated.

A Linguistic Distinction: al-kitāb bi’l-ḥaqq vs. muṣaddiqan bi’l-ḥaqq

A further layer of precision emerges when we distinguish between two possible constructions: al-kitāb bi’l-ḥaqq (the Book with truth) and the hypothetical muṣaddiqan bi’l-ḥaqq (confirming with truth). The Qur’ān deliberately chooses the former structure, attaching بِالْحَقِّ to the act of revelation (نَزَّلَ), rather than to the act of confirmation (مُصَدِّقًا). This choice is rhetorically decisive.

Had the verse said muṣaddiqan bi’l-ḥaqq, the emphasis would fall narrowly on the method of confirmation, that the Qur’ān confirms previous scriptures in a truthful manner. While meaningful, this would limit the scope of truth to a single function: tasdīq. The Qur’ān would then appear as one that merely confirms correctly, without establishing truth as its ontological foundation.

Instead, by stating نَزَّلَ… بِالْحَقِّ, the Qur’ān anchors truth at the level of origin, not merely at the level of action. Truth is not just how the Qur’ān confirms; it is how it exists, how it descends, and how it operates in totality. The confirmation (مُصَدِّقًا) thus becomes a secondary expression of a deeper reality: the Qur’ān confirms because it is, in essence, truth-bearing and truth-governed.

In balāghah terms, this is a shift from taqyīd al-fiʿl (restricting the action) to taʾṣīl al-maʿnā (grounding the entire meaning). The Qur’ān does not simply perform truth; it embodies it. Consequently, its engagement with previous revelation is not confined to affirmation; it includes discernment, correction, and judgment.

This distinction reinforces the earlier conclusion: the Qur’ān’s tasdīq is not an isolated or absolute endorsement, but a function emerging from its comprehensive alignment with al-ḥaqq. By placing truth at the point of revelation rather than at the point of confirmation, the verse elevates the Qur’ān from a passive confirmer to an active معيار (criterion) that does not merely echo previous scriptures, but measures them.

Reframing the Claim: From Confirmation to Criterion

The claim itself must be reframed. What is often presented as a dilemma rests on a fundamental misreading of the Qur’ānic language. This is not an imposition upon the text; it is demanded by it. It harmonizes seamlessly with other Qur’ānic passages that speak explicitly of distortion (taḥrīf) and alteration among earlier communities (e.g., 2:79, 4:46), and with the description of the Qur’ān as مُهَيْمِنًا عَلَيْهِ (a guardian, overseer) in 5:48. The Qur’ān does not stand beside previous scriptures as a passive witness; it stands over them as an active criterion, affirming the أصل (original revelation) and correcting the historical record.

Thus, the claim that this verse creates a theological “dilemma” collapses at the level of language. It assumes that tasdīq (confirmation) is absolute, while the Arabic explicitly renders it conditional. It ignores the ḥāl that governs the sentence and reads the verse as if its most decisive word were absent. But the Qur’ān is not careless with its words. بِالْحَقِّ is not incidental; it is the filter through which the entire verse must be understood.

In this light, the Qur’ān’s relationship to previous revelation can be expressed with precision: it confirms, but not indiscriminately; it affirms, but not unconditionally. It is a معيار that distinguishes truth from falsehood within the inherited scriptural tradition. To read it otherwise is to engage not with the Qur’ān as it speaks, but with a translation stripped of its rhetorical architecture.

The verse, then, is not a concession; it is a declaration of authority. The Qur’ān does not extend a blanket endorsement to texts as they exist in history; it reasserts the معيار by which all claims to revelation must be measured. In the language of revelation: it does not merely recall the past; it stands in judgment over it.

— Aiman M. Kotb

Please introduce yourself.

 

Christians tend to regurgitate the same rhetoric and can come across as quite patronising. Take, for example, the hadith of the first revelation. Some Christians ask, ‘Why didn’t the angel introduce himself?’ which is, indeed, a rather awkward question. Why would an introduction be necessary?

This low tier Christian polemic has truly baffled me, as I don’t understand why such a question would be asked, considering that no such criteria are presented anywhere in the Bible.

This question can be answered using verses from the Qur’an:

Say: “Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel (should know that) he revealed this (Qur’an) to your heart by Allah’s leave: it confirms the Scriptures revealed before it, and is a guidance and good tiding to the people of faith. (2:97)

 

Tell them: "It is the spirit of holiness that has brought it down, by stages, from your Lord so that it might bring firmness to those who believe, and guidance to the Right Way, and give glad tidings of felicity and success to those who submit to Allah." (16:102)

 

Indeed this is a revelation from the Lord of the Universe; which the truthful spirit has carried down to your heart that you might become one of those who warn (others on behalf of Allah), (a revelation) in clear Arabic language, (26:192-195)

 

Note that Allah Swt explicitly tells us that the revelation of the Qur’an was brought down by Gabriel Pbuh. This effectively shuts down their polemic regarding who was the Angel in the cave. Now, before we move to the Christian Bible, let us examine this argument more closely and demonstrate how desperate this failed attempt is.

 

A'isha, the wife of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), reported:

 

The first (form) with which was started the revelation to the Messenger of Allah was the true vision in sleep. And he did not see any vision but it came like the bright gleam of dawn. Thenceforth solitude became dear to him and he used to seclude himself in the cave of Hira', where he would engage in tahannuth (and that is a worship for a number of nights) before returning to his family and getting provisions again for this purpose. He would then return to Khadija and take provisions for a like period, till Truth came upon him while he was in the cave of Hira'. There came to him the angel and said: Recite, to which he replied: I am not lettered. He took hold of me [the Apostle said] and pressed me, till I was hard pressed; thereafter he let me off and said: Recite. I said: I am not lettered. He then again took hold of me and pressed me for the second time till I was hard pressed and then let me off and said: Recite, to which I replied: I am not lettered. He took hold of me and pressed me for the third time, till I was hard pressed and then let me go and said: Recite in the name of your Lord Who created, created man from a clot of blood. Recite. And your most bountiful Lord is He Who taught the use of pen, taught man what he knew not (al-Qur'an, xcvi. 1-4). Then the Prophet returned therewith, his heart was trembling, and he went to Khadija and said: Wrap me up, wrap me up! So they wrapped him till the fear had left him. He then said to Khadija: O Khadija! what has happened to me? and he informed her of the happening, saying: I fear for myself. She replied: It can't be. Be happy. I swear by Allah that He shall never humiliate you. By Allah, you join ties of relationship, you speak the truth, you bear people's burden, you help the destitute, you entertain guests, and you help against the vicissitudes which affect people. Khadija then took him to Waraqa b. Naufal b. Asad b. 'Abd al-'Uzza, and he was the son of Khadija's uncle, i. e., the brother of her father. And he was the man who had embraced Christianity in the Days of Ignorance (i. e. before Islam) and he used to write books in Arabic and, therefore, wrote Injil in Arabic as God willed that he should write. He was very old and had become blind Khadija said to him: O uncle! listen to the son of your brother. Waraqa b. Naufal said: O my nephew! what did you see? The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), then, informed him what he had seen, and Waraqa said to him: It is namus that God sent down to Musa. Would that I were then (during your prophetic career) a young man. Would that I might be alive when your people would expel you! The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Will they drive me out? Waraqa said: Yes. Never came a man with a like of what you have brought but met hostilities. If I see your day I shall help you wholeheartedly.[ Sahih Muslim 160a]

 

 

The above hadith is also found in Bukhari. I have highlighted the key wording that Christians use as part of their polemic namely, “the angel.” They argue: why didn’t the angel introduce himself?

Firstly, one must understand that the hadith is a concise narrative of an event and experience that happened to the Prophet Pbuh, so not every detail will be recorded word for word; rather, the key and relevant information is conveyed. We have already shown from the Qur’an that the angel who brought down the revelation to the Prophet Muhammad Pbuh was none other than Gabriel Pbuh. As mentioned earlier, not every detail is recorded word for word. It is possible that Gabriel Pbuh did introduce himself, but this was not included in the narration, as the narrator already knew who the angel was, as did the companions to whom it was related.

Consider this, the Prophet Muhammad Pbuh had already made it known to the companions RA that the revelation brought to his heart was from Gabriel Pbuh. This was common knowledge among the companions, and even non-Muslims living at that time whether Arab pagans or Jews were aware that Gabriel Pbuh was the angel who brought down the Qur’an.

In fact, when some of the Jews came to know that Gabriel Pbuh was the messenger angel who delivered the Qur’an, they rejected it, and verse 2:97 of the Qur’an was revealed. Thus, not mentioning the name of the angel, Gabriel Pbuh, was not necessary, as it was already common knowledge that the only being who would directly bring down the Qur’an was Gabriel Pbuh. This polemic carries no weight and only demonstrates how weak Christian arguments have become, and how they ultimately backfire, as we shall see.

 

That said, we do have other hadith in which the name of Gabriel Pbuh is mentioned.

 Yahya reported:

 

I asked Abu Salama what was revealed first from the Qur'an. He said:" 0, the shrouded one." I said: Or" Recite." Jabir said: I am narrating to you what was narrated to us by the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). He said: I stayed in Hira' for one month and when my stay was completed, I come down and went into the heart of the valley. Somebody called me aloud. I looked in front of me, behind me, on the right of my side and on my left, but I did not see any body. I was again called and I looked about but saw nothing. I was called again and raised my head, and there on the Throne in the open atmosphere he, i. e. Gabriel (peace be upon him) was sitting. I began to tremble on account of fear. I came to Khadija and said: Wrap me up. They wrapped me up and threw water on me and Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, sent down this: you who are shrouded! arise and deliver warning, your Lord magnify, your clothes cleanse."

 

وَحَدَّثَنَا زُهَيْرُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، حَدَّثَنَا الْوَلِيدُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ، حَدَّثَنَا الأَوْزَاعِيُّ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ يَحْيَى، يَقُولُ سَأَلْتُ أَبَا سَلَمَةَ أَىُّ الْقُرْآنِ أُنْزِلَ قَبْلُ قَالَ يَا أَيُّهَا الْمُدَّثِّرُ ‏.‏ فَقُلْتُ أَوِ اقْرَأْ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ سَأَلْتُ جَابِرَ بْنَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ أَىُّ الْقُرْآنِ أُنْزِلَ قَبْلُ قَالَ يَا أَيُّهَا الْمُدَّثِّرُ ‏.‏ فَقُلْتُ أَوِ اقْرَأْ قَالَ جَابِرٌ أُحَدِّثُكُمْ مَا حَدَّثَنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏"‏ جَاوَرْتُ بِحِرَاءٍ شَهْرًا فَلَمَّا قَضَيْتُ جِوَارِي نَزَلْتُ فَاسْتَبْطَنْتُ بَطْنَ الْوَادِي فَنُودِيتُ فَنَظَرْتُ أَمَامِي وَخَلْفِي وَعَنْ يَمِينِي وَعَنْ شِمَالِي فَلَمْ أَرَ أَحَدًا ثُمَّ نُودِيتُ فَنَظَرْتُ فَلَمْ أَرَ أَحَدًا ثُمَّ نُودِيتُ فَرَفَعْتُ رَأْسِي فَإِذَا هُوَ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ فِي الْهَوَاءِ - يَعْنِي جِبْرِيلَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلاَمُ - فَأَخَذَتْنِي رَجْفَةٌ شَدِيدَةٌ فَأَتَيْتُ خَدِيجَةَ فَقُلْتُ دَثِّرُونِي ‏.‏ فَدَثَّرُونِي فَصَبُّوا عَلَىَّ مَاءً فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ ‏{‏ يَا أَيُّهَا الْمُدَّثِّرُ * قُمْ فَأَنْذِرْ * وَرَبَّكَ فَكَبِّرْ * وَثِيَابَكَ فَطَهِّرْ‏}‏ ‏"‏ ‏.

 

(Sahih Muslim Book 1, Hadith 316)

 

The hadith clearly states that Gabriel Pbuh was the angel who came to Cave Hira. It even uses his name, جِبْرِيلَ. One may wonder why Christians would make the claim that the name of the angel was unknown. I have intentionally included the Arabic wording in case it is argued that the Arabic text does not mention the name.

 

“When I was midway on the mountain, I heard a voice from heaven saying, 'O Muhammad! Thou art the Apostle of God and I am Gabriel.' I raised my head towards heaven to see, and lo! Gabriel in the form of a man, with feet astride the horizon, saying, 'O Muhammad! Thou art the Apostle of God, and I am Gabriel.' I stood gazing at him, moving neither forward nor backward; then I began to turn my face away from him, but towards whatever region of the sky I looked, I saw him as before.” (Seerah Ibn Hishām p. 62-63)

 

Ibn Hishām, in his Sīrah, reports that Gabriel Pbuh introduced himself to the Prophet Muhammad Pbuh. Their entire argument has completely collapsed. If self-introduction is taken as a criterion, then the Christian position falls apart by its own standard.

Who spoke from heaven during the baptism of Jesus (Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22, Matthew 3:17)? None of these accounts explicitly identify whose voice it was. By that logic, can we conclude that it was Satan?

If the speaker does not introduce himself, then by the same standard used by Christians, one could argue it was Satan. This exposes the inconsistency of that criterion.

Did the angel who visited Mary, the mother of Jesus, introduce himself? Did the angel who appeared in Joseph’s dream identify himself? I challenge Christians to show where, in their own scripture, such an introduction is explicitly mentioned this is an open challenge.

If the angels did not identify themselves, then by that same standard, must we conclude they were the devil?

Furthermore, according to Deuteronomy 28:68, one of the punishments for disobedience is being sent back to Egypt. Yet Joseph is instructed by an unidentified angel to take his family to Egypt the very place God had warned against. Is this not, by that logic, something one could attribute to Satan?

 

This polemic is utterly baseless, and it is difficult to see how any serious argument could be built upon it. By their own standard, there is no consistent evidence of self-identification in these instances whether by their God or by an angel. By that logic, the argument completely collapses and exposes its own inconsistency.

WITHOUT PAEDOPHILES THERE IS NO CHRISTIAN MESSIAH.

  

If a person you are having a dialogue with lacks basic knowledge of the subject in question, then you know it’s not worth the time or energy. This isn’t to say that you are losing the discussion; it means you’re wasting precious time that could be more productive in other ways.

Take, for example, the topic of child marriage. For some bizarre reason Christians keep bringing this up obsessively, as if it’s central to their faith, and staying silent on it would somehow make them lose that faith.

Now, discussing certain matters can open the door to meaningful conversation and a better understanding of one another’s views. However, when the same topic is repeatedly used as a weapon against Muslims, it becomes patronising, unproductive, and intellectually dishonest and ultimately leads nowhere.

Let’s make one thing clear, the marriage of Prophet Muhammed Pbuh to our Mother Aisha RA was ordained by Allah Swt. Yet some Christians obsess over her young age, elevating this one point as if it invalidates everything else. why the Prophet Muhammed Pbuh married our Mother Aisha RA at a young age. It is treated as the centre of attention, as if no other human being in history ever married someone young. Labelling the Messenger Pbuh as a “paedophile” is a blatant lie and a deliberate attack on his character. This grotesque, vile, and offensive language crosses the line into blasphemy and is utterly unacceptable.

Let’s be clear this fallacious and nonsensical Christian polemic is easily dismantled. What age of consent does the Bible actually set for marriage? Where does it explicitly forbid marrying a male or female at the age of six? If Christians claim their morality comes from the Bible, then what does it truly say on this issue? The answer is simple: it doesn’t which makes this nothing more than an argument from silence.

Furthermore, according to which historical, academic, or medical sources is it stated that marrying a six-year-old fifteen hundred years ago without consummation was considered pedophilia? Please cite the relevant scholarship. As a matter of fact, reputable scholarship argues that, “People 1,500 years ago considered such a marriage to be pedophilia”

This brings us back to the original point engaging in discussion with individuals who lack even basic historical knowledge and argue dishonestly is a waste of time.

If you reject Prophet Muhammad Pbuh on the basis of his marriage to our Mother Aisha RA, then consistency demands that you also reject Isaac, the bearer of the everlasting covenant, and King David, the forefather of your Messiah, Jesus. If not, then this is nothing more than selective outrage and outright hypocrisy.

You can’t condemn one person while excusing another in identical circumstances. That’s not debate that’s hypocrisy. It turns your argument into nothing more than a personal attack, fueled by agenda and dressed up as criticism, which is nothing but slander.

Nevertheless, let’s test how consistent Christians really are by approaching the same subject from a more historical perspective.

What does history tell us about the marriages of Isaac and King David? This matter was discussed by the rabbis and was never considered an issue affecting the character of either individual. This also highlights a crucial question: how did early Jewish society understand and accept marriages at a young age?

There’s no need to hunt for hidden texts Jewish sources are readily accessible to anyone willing to read. Open their books and see for yourself. Discussions about the appropriate age of marriage, whether for males or females, were never taboo. The scholars of the Hebrew Bible explicitly mention these ages, claiming they were taught directly by Moses, as revealed to him by God at Mount Sinai.

 

“A Jew can marry a girl three years and day old” (Talmud Sanhedrin 55b)

 

“the halakha with regard to the intercourse of a girl aged three years and one day is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai” (Talmud Niddah 32)

 

“The intercourse of a [girl] less than three years old is not intercourse, is a 'law of Moshe from Sinai.'” (Rambam Introduction to the Mishnah 8:32)

 

“A girl who is three years and one day old whose father arranged her betrothal can be betrothed with intercourse, as, despite her age, the legal status of intercourse with her is that of full-fledged intercourse.” (Talmud Sanhedrin 69a)

 

“Ravina said: Therefore, with regard to a female gentile child who is three years and one day old, since she is fit to engage in intercourse at that age, she also imparts impurity as one who experienced” (Talmud Avodah Zarah 37a:1)

 

 “A girl of the age of three years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse” (Talmud Niddah 44b)

 

“He who loves his wife as himself & honours her more than himself, & leads his children in the right path, & marries them just before they attain puberty” (Talmud Sanhedrin 76b)

 

"It is known that marriage of a minor girl is by rabbinic law, and therefore no one would confuse this type of marriage with an adult marriage." (Talmud Yevamot 107a)

 

“Rava said that this is what the mishna is saying: An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl less than three years old has done nothing, as intercourse with a girl less than three years old is tantamount to poking a finger into the eye.” (Talmud Ketubot 11b)

These are only a handful of references from Jewish Talmudic sources that explicitly state the age of a female, while other sources address the age of a male. Notice how the rabbis confidently refer to the age of “three years and one day” without hesitation. Consider this carefully, within Judaism, the Torah is understood as divinely inspired law given to Moses, alongside the Oral Law preserved in the Mishnah. All rulings whether concerning marriage, dietary practice, civil matters, finance, or criminal law are derived from both the written and oral traditions.

Here’s the real question: why didn’t Jesus explicitly condemn the teaching or practice of such young ages for marriage? He had no hesitation calling out the rabbis on numerous issues rebuking the Pharisees for their hypocrisy (Matthew 23:24), criticizing their performative fasting (Matthew 6:16–18), and even correcting their teachings by commanding people to love their enemies (Matthew 5:43–44).

So why the silence here? If this were truly a moral outrage, why didn’t Jesus address it directly? How could something so significant be ignored while lesser matters were openly challenged? The reality is simple: the Bible does not speak on it yet it is now being used as a standard of judgment.

Was it something Jesus recognised as part of the cultural norms of his society and therefore left unchallenged? Or was it because he stated that he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfil it thus remaining silent on matters the Law itself did not explicitly address? How could a man who stood firmly for truth remain silent on an issue now claimed to be so morally significant?

Let us now move on to another issue one that Christians should address using their own claimed moral standards. Let’s see whether they remain consistent in their argument, or attempt to evade it when the same standard is applied. With all due respect, I generally find many Christian apologists to be dishonest in their arguments, but it would be unfair to paint everyone with the same brush.

 

“…Bathsheba gave birth to Solomon when she was six, because a woman is stronger and can conceive at an earlier age. Know that this is true that women conceive at an earlier age, as Bathsheba had already given birth to a child from David before giving birth to Solomon…” (Talmud Sanhedrin 69b)

"Bathsheba gave birth to Solomon when she was six"

Let’s draw attention to a statement found in the Babylonian Talmud, a text highly revered by Orthodox rabbis. The Talmud records the sayings and rulings of rabbis, derived from the Mishnah the Oral Law they claim traces back to Moses at Sinai. This effectively elevates it to divinely inspired status, forming what they consider a single Torah expressed in two forms: written and oral.

Notice how the rabbis appear to justify the idea of a six-year-old giving birth. This is not presented as an isolated case, but rather as something reflective of a broader social reality of that time. In other words, it was treated as a norm. The discussion itself is framed around the notion that “a woman is stronger and can conceive at an earlier age.” Rabbi Rashi addresses this point in this commentary to this Talmudic writing. In fact, the Talmud even references that a female reaching the age of nine could be regarded as having reached maturity.

The Gemara asks: And how old must a child be to be considered grown up for the purposes of this halakha? Rav Adda bar Rav Azza says that Rav Asi says: A girl must reach the age of nine years and one day; a boy must reach the age of twelve years and one day. (Talmud Kiddushin 81b)

 

The Talmud also speak of a non-important girl marrying age six and giving birth.

 

Yusteni further inquired: And at what age is she fit to become pregnant? Rabbi YehHuda aNasi said to her: When she is at least twelve years and one day old. She said to him: I married when I was six, and gave birth a year later, when I was seven. Woe for those three years, between the age of three, when I was fit for intercourse, and the age of six, when I married, as I wasted those years in my father’s house by not engaging in intercourse. (Talmuld Nidda 45a)

 

If Bathsheba gave birth to Solomon at the age of six, then that would imply that King David consummated the relationship with her when she was around five years old. It is also worth noting that, prior to the birth of Solomon, Bathsheba had another child with King David conceived outside of marriage. You can draw your own conclusions about how old she may have been at the time they committed adultery.

Jesus is considered by Christians to be the seed of David the Messiah from the Davidic line. But would it be fair to claim that the Christian Messiah is descended from a paedophile? If King David married and consummated a relationship with a five year old, wouldn’t that, by default, make him a paedophile. Whys is Jesus linked to such a man? Are Christians willing to be consistent and acknowledge this reality? If they reject Prophet Muhammad Pbuh for marrying our Mother Aisha RA solely because of her age, shouldn’t they also reject King David entirely and question the glorification of his lineage? Why glorify a line that stems from someone guilty of such acts?

Despite the rejection of rabbinic teachings by Christians, it is well attested by Orthodox rabbis that Isaac married Rebecca when she was three years old. Christians may react strongly to this, but the fact remains that Jesus explicitly glorified the Pharisees; Orthodox rabbis by instructing his followers to observe and obey everything they taught [Matthew 23:1–3]. Theologically, this undermines the Christian dismissal of rabbinic teachings and sayings. By default, Christians must accept the sayings and teaching of the Orthodox rabbis.

Rashi’s commentary on Genesis 25:20 says:

forty years old: For when Abraham came from Mount Moriah, he was informed that Rebecca had been born. Isaac was then thirty-seven years old, for at that time Sarah died, and from the time that Isaac was born until the “Binding” [of Isaac], when Sarah died, were thirty-seven years, for she was ninety years old when Isaac was born, and one hundred and twenty-seven when she died, as it is stated (above 23:1): “The life of Sarah was [a hundred and twenty-seven years.”] This makes Isaac thirty-seven years old, and at that time, Rebecca was born. HE WAITED FOR HER UNTIL SHE WOULD BE FIT FOR MARITAL RELATIONS-THREE YEARS-AND THEN MARRIED HER.— [From Gen. Rabbah 57:1]

Rashi’s calculation goes as follows: Rivkah was married at 3 years, and was 23 years old when she gave birth to Esau and Yaakov. (Daat Zkenim on Genesis 25:20:1)

 

“Isaac was thirty-seven-years old at his binding… When Abraham returned from Mount Moriah, at that very moment Sarah died, and Isaac was then thirty-seven; and at that very time Abraham was told of Rebekah’s birth; THUS WE FIND THAT REBECCA WAS THREE YEARS OLD WHEN SHE MARRIED ISAAC.” (Pesikta Zutrata (Lekah Tov), Gen. 24., Midrashic commentary on the Pentateuch, by Rabbi Tobiah Ben Eliezer)
 

The maiden was very beautiful, a virgin whom no man had known. She went down to the spring, filled her jar, and came up. Genesis 24:16)

 

בתולה, “a virgin;” according to the view that Rivkah was only three years old, the Torah hardly needed to add this detail; the Talmud Niddah 44, explains this by saying that even if she had been violated by someone, her hymen had grown together again, (something that was known to people in those days).

(Commentary Chizkuni, Genesis 24:16:1)

 

 

The Torah itself testifies that Yitzchak was 40 years old when he married Rivkah , which makes Rivkah 3 years old when she was married. (Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 24:67:1)

 

Rabbis unanimously agree that Isaac married Rebecca when she was three years old. This makes it all the more remarkable that the very covenant-bearer, whose promise is fulfilled by Jesus as the Messiah, married a child. Isn’t that something? And yet, Christians constantly celebrate the “everlasting” covenant to Isaac, presenting it as a profound foreshadowing of the Messiah while conveniently ignoring the ethical implications. Ignoring the fact that he married a three year old girl what kind of double standard is this?

 

Critiquing the 7th century using 21st-century standards falls squarely under the fallacy of presentism. Christians don’t need this explained it’s common sense. Just because a modern country sets a legal age for marriage, work, or drinking doesn’t mean that age should have applied universally across time. Consider this, Noah lived 950 years. If we insist that 18 is the legal age for marriage, would it have been wrong for Noah, at 600 years old, to marry an 18 year old woman? Or would we then claim that women had to be at least 400 years old to marry him? Where does such reasoning end?

Ignorance can be corrected, and we are happy to provide education. But if, after being educated, you still insist on the same position, it proves your intention is not dialogue or understanding it is to push an agenda, provoke, and obstruct meaningful discussion. And this is where we draw the line and move on.

Rabbinic sources reveal that both King David and Isaac had child brides. Using the very standards Christians apply to condemn Prophet Muhammad Pbuh, the conclusion is inescapable: “WITHOUT PAEDOPHILES THERE IS NO MESSIAH.” By Christian logic where marrying a six-year-old is enough to earn that label both Isaac and King David qualify. And they didn’t stop there, Isaac married Rebecca at three, and King David married Bathsheba at the same age. If Christian moral criteria are applied consistently, the implications are undeniable.

 

Christians have to accept PAEDOPHILES HAVE MADE WAY FOR THEIR MESSIAH.

 

 

 

 

We “Christians” are the People of the Injeel.

 

And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient. [Surah 5:47]

 

Christians are under the assumption this verse is referring to them. Let us examine this claim.

 

Firstly, the verse explicitly states, "judge by what Allah has revealed." Do Christians believe Allah Swt revealed judgment to Isa As?

 

Secondly, according to the Islamic paradigm, the Injeel contains alongside some rulings the description, advent, and prophecies of Prophet Muhammad Pbuh. Do Christians believe this to be the same Gospel as the one they have?

Thirdly, the Qur’an explicitly states that Isa As was not crucified, that there was no third day resurrection, that he is not the Son of God nor God Himself, and that there is no Trinity thus completely rejecting Christian creedal beliefs. Do Christians still consider themselves to be the People of the Gospel according to the Islamic understanding of the Qur’anic narrative?   

Fourthly, there are significant theological sayings revealed to Isa As :

 

[Jesus] said, "Indeed, I am the servant of Allah. He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet. [Surah 19:30]

 

They have certainly disbelieved who say, "Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary" while the Messiah has said, "O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Indeed, he who associates others with Allah – Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers. [Surah 5:72]

 

And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?' " He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen

 

I said not to them except what You commanded me – to worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness. [Surah 5:116-117]

Do Christians believe that Jesus is the servant of Allah Swt? Do they also believe that, when questioned, he denied being God and instructed his followers to worship Allah alone without associating any partners with Him, warning that whoever does so will be forbidden from Paradise? According to the Islamic understanding, this would form part of the revelation of the Injeel.

Finally, if Nasara means helpers of Allah Swt that is, by spreading the message of Tawheed (the oneness of Allah, Monotheism) while believing in the Last and Final Messenger, Prophet Muhammad Pbuh, as well as the rulings and judgments given to Isa As from Allah Swt then, by default, one would be considered a Muslim.

Though we know through classical commentators that this verse is referring to the people from the time of Isa As, those who were living during his time. Even if we accepted your interpretation that the verse is referring to you, it would still backfire, and you would have no ground to stand upon, as mentioned a few verses later.

 

Say, "O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord [i.e., the Qur’an]." And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. So do not grieve over the disbelieving people. [Surah 5:68]

 

 

 

Turn to a corrupted book if in doubt?

 

The claim that Surah 10:94 instructs Muslims to consult the People of the Scripture is incorrect. Furthermore, even if someone were to entertain this claim, it would still backfire on them. Let us proceed with the second point and examine how it backfires on them.

 

Christians foolishly claim that the Qur’an explicitly commands Muslims to turn to the People of the Book if they are in doubt. The problem with this claim is that the very Bible Christians want us to turn to admits that it has been corrupted.

 

How do you say, We are wise, and the Torah of the Lord is with us? when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie? (Jeremiah 8:8)

 

So is the Qur’an commanding believers to turn to a book that openly declares it has been corrupted? Christians first have to explain why a Muslim would even want to accept a book that has been tampered with by man, let alone accept it as the Word of God.

It is absurd to make such a claim about your book, which itself testifies that it has been corrupted by man, whereas the Qur’an states that it is free from corruption and protected by Allah Swt.

 

Indeed, it is We who sent down the message [i.e., the Qur’an], and indeed, We will be its guardian. [Surah 15:9]

 

Ask yourself this, why would Muslims consult the People of the Scripture, whose scripture has been tampered with? There is absolutely nothing the bible can provide us which we have in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Islam is a perfected religion.

 

“This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion.” [Surah 5:3]

 

A perfected religion has no need for anything outside of what it already contains. Christians must concede to the fact their book has been corrupted and leave not room for anyone to receive guidance from, rather the Qur’an explicitly calls it a book of guidance for mankind.

 

“This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah” [Surah 2:2]

“It was in the month of Ramadan that the Qur’an was revealed as guidance for mankind” [Surah 2:185]

 

The Qur’an is guidance for mankind would it direct Muslims to consult people who have corrupted their own book and harbor enmity and hatred toward them? Does that even make sense logically? Christians need to stop misrepresenting the Qur’an and start realizing that the stupendous claim they make that Muslims should ask them if in doubt is fallacious and carries no weight, instead, it only makes them look foolish.