ABRAHAMIC THEOLOGY

Reimagining Gog and Magog: Could Zionism Fulfill an Ancient Prophecy?

Azahari Hassim

Reimagining Gog and Magog: Could Zionism Fulfill an Ancient Prophecy?

What if everything we thought about biblical prophecy was backwards?

Across the Abrahamic faiths—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—Gog and Magog (known in Arabic as Ya’juj and Ma’juj) are end-times forces associated with chaos, war, and divine judgment. But what if those names don’t point to distant foreign powers or symbolic evil empires? What if they point to something much closer—something political, even modern?

This article explores a bold and controversial possibility: that modern Zionism, often viewed as the return of Jews to their biblical homeland, might instead fulfill the prophetic role of Gog and Magog. And more surprisingly, that Palestinians—long portrayed as the enemy in many religious and political narratives—could actually be the surviving descendants of ancient Israelites, the true inheritors of the land.

Ben Gurion’s Forgotten Statement

David Ben Gurion, the founding Prime Minister of Israel, once made a striking claim: that many Palestinians are descendants of Jews who never left the land after the Roman expulsions. Over centuries, these Jews became Christians and later Muslims, but they remained rooted in the soil of ancient Israel.

That quote rarely makes headlines. But if it holds any truth, it upends the standard story of “returning Jews” and “foreign Arabs.” Instead, it raises the question: Who is truly returning—and who never left?

Ezekiel’s Prophecy: Who Are the Invaders?

In the Hebrew Bible, chapters 38 and 39 of Ezekiel describe Gog, of the land of Magog, leading a coalition to invade the peaceful land of Israel. The result is divine wrath: earthquakes, fire from heaven, and utter destruction of the invaders. One curious detail? The weapons of Gog and Magog will be burned as firewood for seven years after the war ends.

Traditionally, this passage is seen as foretelling a future attack against the Jewish people in their land. But what if, in light of Ben Gurion’s claim, the real invaders are not defending Israel but attacking the true remnant of it?

Islamic Prophecy Echoes the Same Story

Islamic tradition also speaks of Gog and Magog. The Prophet Muhammad reportedly said that after their defeat, Muslims would burn their weapons—for seven years. That’s not just a strange coincidence—it’s nearly a word-for-word echo of Ezekiel.

The hadith, reported in Sunan Ibn Majah, states:

“The Muslims will burn the weapons of Gog and Magog for seven years.”

This clearly echoes Ezekiel 39, verse 9.

So here’s the puzzle: If both Islam and the Hebrew Bible speak of an apocalyptic invasion, followed by the survivors using the enemy’s weapons as firewood, could they be describing the same event from different angles?

Zionism as Gog and Magog?

What if the modern Zionist movement, especially in its militant or nationalist forms, fits the pattern of Gog and Magog more than anyone else?

Here’s the logic behind that idea:
Gog and Magog are portrayed as powerful, aggressive forces invading and dominating the land.
Zionism, since its emergence, has involved the displacement and suppression of the native Palestinian population—many of whom, if Ben Gurion was right, are descendants of ancient Jews.
That would mean the “invaders” are not returning natives, but foreign powers acting in the name of divine destiny while pushing out the true heirs of the land.

This reversal is uncomfortable, even shocking. But it asks a question worth pondering: Has the prophetic script been flipped?

Seven Years of Burning: A Symbolic Cleansing

In both the Bible and the hadith, the burning of weapons for seven years symbolizes more than just clean-up—it represents purification. The tools of war are transformed into fuel for life. It marks the end of an age of violence and the beginning of something new—something divinely approved.

If Palestinians are the ones who remain after the storm, perhaps these prophecies are not just about survival, but about spiritual and historical vindication.

Rethinking the Inheritance

This interpretation may not sit well with everyone. It challenges political narratives, religious assumptions, and deeply held beliefs. But it also bridges the gap between Islamic and biblical prophecy, offering a unified vision of justice, continuity, and hope.

Maybe the real question isn’t just who inherits the land—but who carries forward the legacy of the ancient covenant. Not in name alone, but in blood, soil, and spirit.

Final Thought

Sometimes prophecy isn’t about the future—it’s a mirror held up to the present. And sometimes, the people we think are the villains in a story turn out to be its forgotten heroes.

Gog and Magog: Their Religion and Obsession with the “Town”

The figures of Gog and Magog—known in Islamic tradition as Yajuj and Majuj—are shrouded in apocalyptic mystery across Abrahamic religions.

While the Quran and Hadith literature provide limited but evocative details about them, interpretations and speculation abound. Among these is the idea that Gog and Magog may adhere to the Jewish faith and harbor a fixation on the Holy Land, especially the city of Jerusalem.

Quranic Reference and the “Town”

In Surah 21, verse 95, the Quran states:

“And there is a ban upon [the people of] a town which We destroyed: they shall not return.
Until, when Gog and Magog are let loose, and they swarm down from every mound.”

This verse has been interpreted by some exegetes and commentators to refer to Jerusalem, the “town” whose destruction and the divine decree against its reentry become symbolically significant. In this context, the town becomes central to eschatological narratives, particularly involving Gog and Magog. Their emergence is linked to the end of days and the unfolding of divine justice on earth.

Who Are Gog and Magog?

In both Islamic and Judeo-Christian texts, Gog and Magog are described as tribes or peoples of great power and corruption. In the Quran (Surah 18, verses 94 to 99), they are described as causing “mischief in the land” and being temporarily sealed off by the righteous ruler Dhul-Qarnayn, only to break free near the end of time.

In the Islamic eschatological view, their release marks a cataclysmic moment in human history—one of chaos, global strife, and ultimately, divine intervention.

The Theory: Adherents of the Jewish Faith?

One theory proposed by some interpreters and observers is that Gog and Magog might be associated with the Jewish faith. This theory is not explicitly supported by classical Islamic texts, but it arises from certain geopolitical and scriptural readings. The idea hinges on their supposed obsession with the Holy Land, particularly Jerusalem—a city central to Jewish theology, identity, and eschatology.

According to this view, the reference in Surah 21, verse 95 to a town (Jerusalem) and a divine prohibition on return could be indirectly linked to the movements or aspirations of Gog and Magog. Their “obsession” with the land may be interpreted as a reflection of a deeper theological or historical attachment, possibly rooted in Jewish claims to the area.

However, this view remains speculative and is not universally accepted. Many Islamic scholars argue that Gog and Magog are not to be identified with any specific religious group but rather represent a corrupt and destructive force, devoid of spiritual alignment and indifferent to divine guidance.

Symbolism vs. Literalism

The Quranic and Hadith portrayals of Yajuj and Majuj allow room for symbolic interpretation. Rather than focusing solely on their ethnic or religious identity, many scholars emphasize their role in divine narrative: as signs of the approaching Day of Judgment, their release into the world serves as a stark reminder of human vulnerability, the limits of power, and the necessity of divine guidance.

Thus, whether or not they adhere to a specific religion, the deeper message lies in what their emergence represents—chaos preceding divine order, falsehood before the triumph of truth.

Conclusion

While some theorists suggest that Gog and Magog may follow the Jewish faith and possess an enduring obsession with the Holy Land—particularly Jerusalem—Islamic scripture provides little direct support for such claims. Surah 21, verse 95 does refer to a town whose people are barred from return, and this is often interpreted to mean Jerusalem. Yet, the identities and motives of Gog and Magog remain deliberately vague, serving more as eschatological signs than as historical actors.

As with many elements of apocalyptic literature, the role of Gog and Magog ultimately points beyond themselves—to the divine plan, the coming of the final hour, and the unfolding of cosmic justice.

Exploring the Connection Between Gog, Magog, and the Khazars in the Jewish Encyclopedia

How does Jewish Encyclopedia make a connection between people of Gog and Magog and the Khazars?

The Jewish Encyclopedia, a comprehensive work published in the early 20th century, discusses various historical, religious, and cultural topics related to Judaism. In its entries, the encyclopedia explores the connection between Gog and Magog and the Khazars, drawing upon historical and biblical sources.

Gog and Magog are biblical figures mentioned in the Book of Ezekiel and the Book of Revelation, often associated with apocalyptic prophecies and the end times. Over time, these names have been linked to various groups and regions, sometimes representing distant lands or threatening forces.

The Khazars were a semi-nomadic Turkic people who established a powerful empire in the region of the Caucasus and the Volga River between the 7th and 10th centuries. Notably, the Khazar elite and parts of their population converted to Judaism around the 8th century.

In the Jewish Encyclopedia, the connection between Gog and Magog and the Khazars is explored through the lens of medieval Jewish and Christian writings. Some medieval Jewish authors, influenced by earlier traditions and geopolitical realities, identified the Khazars with the apocalyptic figures of Gog and Magog. This association might have been bolstered by the Khazars’ geographical location on the fringes of the known world and their involvement in regional power dynamics.

It’s important to note that these connections are more interpretative and speculative rather than based on concrete historical evidence. They reflect the ways in which biblical prophecies and historical events were intertwined in the medieval imagination, often serving as a means to understand contemporary geopolitical situations through a religious and eschatological framework.

Khazar (Encyclopaedia Britannica)

Khazar, member of a confederation of Turkic-speaking tribes that in the late 6th century CE established a major commercial empire covering the southeastern section of modern European Russia. Although the origin of the term Khazar and the early history of the Khazar people are obscure, it is fairly certain that the Khazars were originally located in the northern Caucasus region and were part of the western Turkic empire (in Turkistan). The Khazars were in contact with the Persians in the mid-6th century CE, and they aided the Byzantine emperor Heraclius (reigned 610–641) in his campaign against the Persians.

By the beginning of the 7th century, the Khazars had become independent of the Turkic empire to the east. But by the middle of that century, the expanding empire of the Arabs had penetrated as far northward as the northern Caucasus, and from then on until the mid-8th century the Khazars engaged in a series of wars with the Arab empire. The Arabs initially forced the Khazars to abandon Derbent (661), but around 685 the Khazars counterattacked, penetrating southward of the Caucasus into present-day Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.

The Khazars and Arabs fought each other directly in Armenia in the 720s, and, though victory passed repeatedly from one side to the other, Arab counterattacks eventually compelled the Khazars to permanently withdraw north of the Caucasus. The Khazars’ initial victories were important, though, since they had the effect of permanently blocking Arab expansion northward into eastern Europe. Having been compelled to shift the centre of their empire northward, the Khazars after 737 established their capital at Itil (located near the mouth of the Volga River) and accepted the Caucasus Mountains as their southern boundary.

During the same period, however, they expanded westward. By the second half of the 8th century, their empire had reached the peak of its power-it extended along the northern shore of the Black Sea from the lower Volga and the Caspian Sea in the east to the Dnieper River in the west. The Khazars controlled and exacted tribute from the Alani and other northern Caucasian peoples (dwelling between the mountains and the Kuban River); from the Magyars (Hungarians) inhabiting the area around the Donets River; from the Goths; and from the Greek colonies on the Crimean Peninsula. The Volga Bulgars and numerous Slavic tribes also recognized the Khazars as their overlords.

Although basically Turkic, the Khazar state bore little resemblance to the other Turkic empires of central Eurasia. It was headed by a secluded supreme ruler of semireligious character called a khagan-who wielded little real power and by tribal chieftains, each known as a beg. The state’s military organization also seems to have lacked the forcefulness of those of the greater Turkic-Mongol empires. The Khazars seem to have been more inclined to a sedentary way of life, building towns and fortresses, tilling the soil, and planting gardens and vineyards. Trade and the collection of tribute were major sources of income.

But the most striking characteristic of the Khazars was the apparent adoption of Judaism by the khagan and the greater part of the ruling class in about 740. The circumstances of the conversion remain obscure, the depth of their adoption of Judaism difficult to assess; but the fact itself is undisputed and unparalleled in central Eurasian history. A few scholars have even asserted that the Judaized Khazars were the remote ancestors of many eastern European and Russian Jews. Whatever the case may be, religious tolerance was practiced in the Khazar empire, and paganism continued to flourish among the population.

The prominence and influence of the Khazar state was reflected in its close relations with the Byzantine emperors: Justinian II (704) and Constantine V (732) each had a Khazar wife. The main source of revenue for the empire stemmed from commerce and particularly from Khazar control of the east-west trade route that linked the Far East with Byzantium and the north-south route linking the Arab empire with northern Slavic lands. Income that was derived from duties on goods passing through Khazar territory, in addition to tribute paid by subordinate tribes, maintained the wealth and the strength of the empire throughout the 9th century.

But by the 10th century the empire, faced with the growing might of the Pechenegs to their north and west and of the Russians around Kiev, suffered a decline. When Svyatoslav, the ruler of Kiev, launched a campaign against the Khazars (965), Khazar power was crushed. Although the Khazars continued to be mentioned in historical documents as late as the 12th century, by 1030 their political role in the lands north of the Black Sea had greatly diminished. Despite the relatively high level of Khazar civilization and the wealth of data about the Khazars that is preserved in Byzantine and Arab sources, not a single line of the Khazar language has survived.

Contents

Home

Allah: The Arabic Name for the One God Across Abrahamic Faiths

Azahari Hassim

The word “Allah” (in Arabic: الله) is the Arabic term for God, and it is used both among Muslims and among Arabic-speaking Christians to refer to the one and only God.

In Islam, “Allah” is the sole deity, the creator, the ruler, and the provider of the world, and is considered to be the same God of Israel and of Christianity, although there are significant differences in religious concepts—for example, Islam rejects the idea of the Holy Trinity that is accepted in Christianity.

In Muslim tradition, Allah is an absolutely monotheistic God: ancient and eternal, creator of all things, overseeing them, and there is none like Him. In both Sunni and Shia perspectives, Allah is seen as an entity with no partners, no division, and no physical form. Muslims believe that only Allah should be worshipped, and He alone is worthy of worship.

Arabic-speaking Christians also use the word “Allah” to refer to God, and they have no other word for this. That is, “Allah” is not a private name of a Muslim god only, but rather the Arabic version of the word “God,” and from the perspective of the Arabic language, it is the same monotheistic God of all nations.

Belief in Allah is a fundamental principle of Islam, and it includes recognition of Allah as creator, as leader, and as provider, as well as belief in His uniqueness, His names, and His attributes. According to Islam, every person can turn to Him directly, without intermediaries.

In summary, “Allah” is the name of God in the Arabic language, and it represents the same one and only God—the God of Israel, the God of Christianity, and the God of Islam—although each religion interprets His essence and attributes in its own way.

YHWH, often referred to as the Tetragrammaton, is the four-letter biblical name of the God of Israel in Hebrew scripture. It is composed of the letters Yod, Heh, Vav, and Heh (יהוה). This name is considered sacred in Judaism, and its pronunciation is traditionally avoided; instead, terms like “Adonai” (Lord) or “Hashem” (the Name) are used in its place during prayer and reading of scripture.

Do Arab Jews refer to the Tetragrammaton “YHWH” as “Allah” in their Arabic literary works?

Yes, many Arab Jews—including Yemenite, Iraqi, Egyptian, and Levantine Jews—used the word “Allah” to refer to the God of Israel in their Arabic literary, religious, and liturgical works. This includes texts written in Judeo-Arabic, a form of Arabic written in Hebrew script.

Key Points:

1. Use of “Allah” for YHWH
In Arabic, “Allah” is the standard term for “God,” and this was naturally adopted by Arabic-speaking Jews.
The Tetragrammaton (YHWH) was never pronounced aloud by Jews, whether in Hebrew or Arabic, due to its sanctity. Instead, Jews substituted:
• “Adonai” in Hebrew readings.
• “Allah” in Arabic translations and discussions.

2. Judeo-Arabic Translations and Commentaries
The Torah translations of Saadia Gaon (10th century), one of the earliest Judeo-Arabic translators, consistently use “Allah” as the Arabic equivalent for the Tetragrammaton.
Jewish biblical commentaries, philosophical texts (like Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed), and liturgical works in Arabic often use “Allah” where Hebrew texts use “YHWH”.

3. Cultural and Linguistic Context
“Allah” was not considered an Islamic term specifically, but a general Arabic term for the one true God.
Just as Christian Arabs use “Allah” in the Arabic Bible, so did Arabic-speaking Jews.
They distinguished their theological understanding of “Allah” (the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) from that of Muslims by context and doctrine, not vocabulary.

4. Substitutes and Euphemisms

In oral piety or informal writings, Arab Jews might also use:
“Rabb” (Lord)
“Al-Mawlā” (The Master)
“Al-Ḥaqq” (The Truth)
“Adonai” in Hebrew contexts, sometimes written in transliteration.

Conclusion:

Yes, Arab Jews referred to YHWH as “Allah” in Arabic religious and literary contexts. This usage was linguistically natural and religiously appropriate within the framework of Arabic monotheism. It reflected a shared Semitic linguistic heritage, even while maintaining theological distinctions from Islamic use.

Why do Jews use the term “G-d” rather than writing out the word “God”?

What is the reason behind the usage of “G-d” by Jews instead of writing the word “God”?

The reason behind the usage of “G-d” by Jews instead of writing the word “God” is rooted in the Jewish tradition of treating God’s name with utmost reverence and respect. In Judaism, the name of God is considered holy and should not be erased or defaced.

By omitting the letter “o” in “God” and replacing it with a hyphen, Jews are avoiding directly spelling out God’s name in full to prevent any potential desecration. This practice stems from the commandment in the Torah to not take God’s name in vain (Exodus 20, verse 7), as well as from a general sense of awe and reverence for the divine. By using “G-d,” Jews are demonstrating their commitment to upholding this tradition and showing respect for God’s sacred name.

Does God of Israel have a son?

The question of whether the God of Israel has a son is answered differently depending on the religious tradition—Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Here’s a summary of each perspective:

Judaism:
No, God has no son.
In Jewish theology, God is absolutely one (monotheism), indivisible, and without partners or offspring.
The concept of God having a literal or divine son is firmly rejected.
While kings like David were sometimes metaphorically called “sons of God” (Psalm 2, verse 7), this was understood in a symbolic or covenantal sense—not a divine or literal sonship.

Christianity:
Yes, God has a Son—Jesus Christ.
Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, begotten not made, and of one essence with the Father (as expressed in the Nicene Creed).
The title “Son of God” means more than a metaphor; it affirms the divinity of Jesus and his unique relationship with God the Father.
This belief is central to Christian doctrine and salvation theology.

Islam:
No, God (Allah) has no son.
The Qur’an explicitly denies that God has any children or partners:

“He begets not, nor is He begotten” (Qur’an, Surah 112, verse 3).

Calling God the “father” or claiming that He has a son is seen as a serious theological error (shirk), contradicting the core Islamic belief in the absolute oneness (tawhid) of God.

Thus, the belief that the God of Israel has a son is affirmed in Christianity, but denied in both Judaism and Islam—each for distinct theological reasons rooted in their respective scriptures and conceptions of divine unity.

The Hebrew Bible, the Trinity, and the Quran: A Brief Reflection

The Hebrew Bible, central to Jewish faith, firmly upholds the absolute oneness of God, as seen in the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4). However, when Christianity adopted these scriptures as the Old Testament, it introduced Trinitarian hermeneutics — interpreting the texts in a way that supported the belief in one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Some argue this approach distorts the original monotheistic message of the Hebrew Bible.

In response to such theological developments, Islam presents the Quran as the final revelation, aimed at safeguarding God’s unity (tawhid). The Quran challenges the concept of the Trinity, reaffirming that God is singular, eternal, and without equal. Thus, while all three Abrahamic faiths deeply honor divine revelation, they differ significantly in interpreting and preserving the oneness of God.

Contents

Home

Isaac and Ishmael in Islamic Tradition: A Narrative of Trial and Reward

Azahari Hassim

From the Islamic perspective, the story of Prophet Abraham and his sons, Ishmael and Isaac, is not merely a tale of lineage but a profound spiritual narrative that speaks to themes of faith, sacrifice, and divine reward.

Central to this story is the contrasting yet complementary roles that Ishmael and Isaac play within the broader tapestry of Abraham’s life and legacy.

According to Islamic tradition, the birth of Isaac is seen as the final chapter in a long journey of trials, a divine reward granted after Abraham’s unwavering faith was tested to its limits. Isaac, therefore, represents a “son of reward”—a miraculous gift born to Abraham and his wife Sarah in their old age, symbolizing the fulfillment of God’s promise and the blessings that come after steadfastness in faith.

Ishmael, on the other hand, is viewed as a “son of trial.” Islamic sources recount that Abraham, following divine instruction, left his firstborn son Ishmael and Ishmael’s mother, Hagar, in the barren desert of Mecca. This act was not one of abandonment, but one of supreme obedience to God’s will. As a baby, Ishmael was placed in an environment of utter desolation, where his mother ran between the hills of Safa and Marwa in desperate search of water—an act that is commemorated during the Hajj pilgrimage. The appearance of the Zamzam well at Ishmael’s feet is seen as a sign of divine mercy and providence.

Furthermore, Islamic tradition maintains that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was the intended son in the near-sacrifice event—an ultimate test of Abraham’s devotion. This belief is supported by Quranic verses that describe the son as a “forbearing” boy and speak of the trial before Isaac’s birth, which aligns with the timeline of Ishmael’s life.

In this view, Isaac’s birth is not isolated from Ishmael’s story but is intricately connected to it. It is understood as a divine reward to Abraham after he demonstrated his willingness to sacrifice his only and firstborn son at the time—Ishmael. The reward was not only in the sparing of Ishmael but also in the joyous arrival of Isaac, fulfilling God’s promise of righteous progeny.

Thus, from an Islamic viewpoint, the narratives of Ishmael and Isaac are two sides of the same coin—trial and reward, obedience and fulfillment. Isaac’s birth closes a chapter of hardship with divine joy, while Ishmael’s trials underscore the depth of Abraham’s faith and the mercy of God. Together, they form a unified story of a family chosen by God, through which great nations and prophetic legacies would arise.

Ishmael, the son dedicated to God, and Isaac, the son of blessing for Abraham and Sarah

It is thought that Abraham abandoned Hagar and the baby Ishmael close to the Kaaba (House of God) to devote them to God as if they were His. Consequently, Muslims celebrate Eid al-Adha and Sa’i, which honors Hagar’s search for water for her child. This happened well before Isaac’s birth. How is their argument explained?

The Islamic narrative of Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael differs significantly from the Biblical account and forms an important part of Islamic tradition and ritual. Here’s an explanation of the argument:

Abraham’s Journey to Mecca

According to Islamic tradition, Abraham was commanded by God to take Hagar and their infant son Ishmael to Mecca. This journey was not seen as abandonment, but rather as fulfilling a divine command. Abraham left them near the location of what would later become the Kaaba, entrusting them to God’s care.

Hagar’s Faith and the Zamzam Well

After Abraham’s departure, Hagar demonstrated remarkable faith. When their water supply was exhausted, she ran between the hills of Al-Safa and Al-Marwah seven times, desperately searching for water for her thirsty child. This act of faith resulted in the miraculous appearance of the Zamzam well, a spring of water that gushed forth near Ishmael.

Significance in Islamic Ritual

This event is commemorated in the Islamic pilgrimage (Hajj) through the ritual of Sa’i, where pilgrims run or walk between the hills of Al-Safa and Al-Marwah seven times, reenacting Hagar’s search for water.

The Kaaba and Mecca

Islamic tradition holds that Abraham later returned to Mecca multiple times. During one of these visits, he and Ishmael constructed the Kaaba as the first house of worship dedicated to the one true God. This established Mecca as a sacred site in Islam.

Eid al-Adha

Eid al-Adha commemorates Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son (identified as Ishmael in Islamic tradition) at God’s command. This event is believed to have occurred near Mecca, further cementing the area’s religious significance.

Timing in Relation to Isaac

In the Islamic narrative, these events occurred before Isaac’s birth. Ishmael is considered the elder son and the one whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice.

God’s Blessing of Isaac

Following the near sacrifice of Ishmael, God blessed Sarah and Abraham with a son named Isaac, fulfilling His promise to them and establishing Isaac as another patriarch in the Abrahamic faiths.

Ishmael was the fruit of Abraham, while Isaac was a gift of God to Abraham

From the Islamic perspective, Ishmael was the fruit of Abraham, while Isaac was a gift of God to Abraham due to his willingness to sacrifice his firstborn son, Ishmael. What is the explanation for this?

In Islamic tradition, both Ishmael and Isaac are revered as prophets and are the sons of the Prophet Abraham. Here’s a breakdown from the Islamic perspective:

Ishmael: He is the first son of Abraham and Hagar. When Hagar and her infant son Ishmael were in the desert, God provided them with the well of Zamzam. Ishmael and his father, Abraham, later constructed the Kaaba in Mecca. The majority of Islamic traditions indicate that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice. However, at the last moment, God provided a ram to sacrifice in place of Ishmael. This event is commemorated during Eid al-Adha.
Isaac: He is the second son of Abraham and his wife, Sarah. In Islamic narratives, after the trial of the sacrifice, as a reward for Abraham’s unwavering faith, God blessed him with a second son, Isaac, through Sarah. Isaac is also considered a prophet and is respected in Islamic tradition.

The Islamic account differs from the Jewish and Christian traditions, where Isaac is the one whom Abraham is commanded to sacrifice. In the Qur’an, the specific name of the son to be sacrificed is not mentioned, but many Islamic scholars and traditions identify him as Ishmael based on the sequence of events in the Quran, which suggests that the promise of Isaac’s birth came after the sacrifice narrative, implying Ishmael was the son involved (Surah 37, verses 100 to 112).

The Cave of Machpelah, or the Cave of the Patriarchs, is a sacred site in Hebron, West Bank, believed to be the burial place of Abraham, Sarah, and other patriarchs and matriarchs. Mentioned in Genesis as land Abraham bought from Ephron the Hittite, it symbolizes his claim to Canaan. The site is revered in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and is housed beneath the Tomb of the Patriarchs, a structure shared today as both a mosque and a synagogue. It remains a place of pilgrimage and historical significance.

What does the Arabic word “نَافِلَةً” mean in Surah 21, verse 72, in the Quran? Could you elaborate more on why the Quran uses such a word to refer to Abraham concerning Isaac and Jacob?

The Arabic word “نَافِلَةً” in Surah 21, verse 72 of the Quran refers to “additional” or “extra” in English. In this verse, it is used to describe how Allah favored Abraham by giving him the additional gift of Isaac and Jacob, in addition to his son Ishmael.

This word is significant in this context because it highlights the special and additional blessings that Allah bestowed upon Prophet Abraham. It emphasizes the extraordinary nature of the gift of Isaac and Jacob, in addition to his first son Ishmael, as a form of divine favor and grace.

The use of the word “نَافِلَةً” also emphasizes the generosity and abundance of Allah’s blessings, highlighting the multiplicity of children and the continuity of prophethood within Prophet Abraham’s lineage. This choice of wording serves to underscore the extraordinary nature of Allah’s favors and blessings upon his chosen prophets and their descendants.

Overall, the use of the word “نَافِلَةً” in this verse serves to emphasize the exceptional nature of the gift of Isaac and Jacob to Prophet Abraham, in addition to his son Ishmael, highlighting the abundance and generosity of Allah’s blessings upon his chosen servants.

Contents

Home

Does God of Israel have a son?

Azahari Hassim

The question of whether the God of Israel has a son is answered differently depending on the religious tradition—Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Here’s a summary of each perspective:

Judaism:

No, God has no son.
In Jewish theology, God is absolutely one (monotheism), indivisible, and without partners or offspring.
The concept of God having a literal or divine son is firmly rejected.
While kings like David were sometimes metaphorically called “sons of God” (Psalm 2, verse 7), this was understood in a symbolic or covenantal sense—not a divine or literal sonship.

Christianity:

Yes, God has a Son—Jesus Christ.
Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, begotten not made, and of one essence with the Father (as expressed in the Nicene Creed).
The title “Son of God” means more than a metaphor; it affirms the divinity of Jesus and his unique relationship with God the Father.
This belief is central to Christian doctrine and salvation theology.

Islam:

No, God (Allah) has no son.
The Qur’an explicitly denies that God has any children or partners:
“He begets not, nor is He begotten” (Qur’an, Surah 112, verse 3).
Calling God the “father” or claiming that He has a son is seen as a serious theological error (shirk), contradicting the core Islamic belief in the absolute oneness (tawhid) of God.

The Hebrew Bible, the Trinity, and the Quran: A Brief Reflection

Where in the New Testament does Jesus teach monotheism?

In the New Testament, Jesus affirms the belief in monotheism, the understanding of one God. He upholds the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures, which emphasize belief in one true God. Here are several examples:

1. Mark 12, verse 29: In response to a question about the greatest commandment, Jesus quotes the Shema from Deuteronomy 6, verse 4, saying,

“The most important one is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.’”

Here, Jesus emphasizes the foundational Jewish belief in one God, affirming that monotheism remains central to his teachings.

2. John 17, verse 3: In his prayer to God, Jesus says,

“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”

By addressing God as the “only true God,” Jesus underlines that God alone is worthy of worship and emphasizes his own role as the one sent by God, distinguishing himself from God and reinforcing monotheistic belief.

3. Matthew 4, verse 10: When tempted by Satan, Jesus responds, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written:

‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’”

Quoting Deuteronomy 6, verse 13, Jesus affirms that worship should be directed to God alone, rejecting the idea of worshiping anyone or anything else.

4. Mark 10, verse: When a man addresses Jesus as “Good Teacher,” Jesus replies,

“Why do you call me good? No one is good—except God alone.”

Here, Jesus redirects the focus back to God, attributing ultimate goodness to God alone. This statement reflects Jesus’ humility and his acknowledgment of God’s unique holiness, underscoring monotheism by reserving true goodness and divinity for God alone.

These verses highlight Jesus’ affirmation of belief in one God and his rejection of worshiping any other gods or idols. Jesus consistently teaches that there is only one true God, encouraging his followers to worship and serve Him alone. Through his words and actions, Jesus aligns himself with the core tenets of monotheism found in the Hebrew Scriptures, affirming the oneness and sovereignty of God.

Monotheism: Unitarian and Trinitarian

Does the term “monotheism” include both Unitarians and Trinitarians?

Yes, the term “monotheism” broadly refers to the belief in a single, all-powerful God. Both Unitarians and Trinitarians are considered monotheists, but they understand the nature of God differently.

Unitarians typically believe in the oneness of God and reject the concept of the Trinity, emphasizing the singular nature of God.

Trinitarians, on the other hand, believe in a Triune God, meaning that one God exists in three persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit, yet these three are co-equal and co-eternal.

While both groups affirm the existence of one God, their interpretations and theological understandings of that oneness differ significantly. Therefore, in a broader sense, both Unitarians and Trinitarians can be included under the umbrella of monotheism, but with important distinctions in their beliefs about the nature of God.

Which view of monotheism aligns better with Jesus’ statement in John 17, verse 3: Unitarian or Trinitarian?

In John 17, verse 3, Jesus says, “Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” This highlights the differences between Unitarianism, which sees God as a single entity and views Jesus as a prophet, and Trinitarianism, which believes in one God in three persons, including the divine nature of Jesus.

Analysis of John 17, verse 3 shows that Jesus references God the Father as the “only true God,” aligning with Unitarian views of God’s singularity. Jesus’ distinction between himself and the Father supports this perspective, as it implies a subordinate role for Jesus.

On the other hand, Trinitarians may argue that this verse acknowledges the relational aspect of the Trinity, asserting that Jesus’ focus on the Father does not lessen his own divinity.

In conclusion, Unitarianism seems to align more closely with John 17, verse 3, emphasizing God’s oneness and the distinction between God and Jesus. However, Trinitarians argue that their interpretation encompasses a unified yet complex view of God. Ultimately, interpretations depend on underlying theological beliefs.

How does Christianity and Judaism view the Holy Spirit differently?

What are the key theological distinctions between Judaism and Christianity regarding the Holy Spirit?

Here are some key theological distinctions between Judaism and Christianity regarding the Holy Spirit:

Judaism:
In Judaism, the Holy Spirit (Ruach HaKodesh) is seen as a divine force or presence from God, not a distinct person or entity.
It is often associated with prophecy, inspiration, and the empowerment of individuals to perform God’s will.
The Holy Spirit is considered a means through which God communicates with and influences the world.
It is not worshipped as a separate being but is understood as an aspect of God’s interaction with humanity.
Christianity:
In Christianity, the Holy Spirit is one of the three persons of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
The Holy Spirit is considered fully divine and co-equal with God the Father and Jesus Christ.
The Holy Spirit is believed to dwell within believers, guiding, comforting, and empowering them.
It plays a crucial role in the process of salvation, sanctification, and the ongoing spiritual life of Christians.
Key Differences:
Judaism views the Holy Spirit as a divine force, while Christianity sees it as a distinct person within the Trinity.
In Christianity, the Holy Spirit is worshipped as part of the Godhead, whereas in Judaism, it is not worshipped separately from God.
The Holy Spirit’s role in Christianity includes indwelling believers and being actively involved in their spiritual lives, which is not a concept present in Judaism.
These distinctions highlight the different theological frameworks and understandings of the Holy Spirit in Judaism and Christianity.

How does Surah 16, verse 102 in the Quran relate to the concept of the Holy Spirit in Judaism?

Surah 16, verse 102 in the Quran states, “Say, ‘The Holy Spirit has brought it down from your Lord with truth to make firm those who believe and as guidance and good news to the Muslims.'”

In Islamic tradition, this Holy Spirit is often identified with the angel Gabriel.

This concept of the Holy Spirit in Islam has some similarities with the Jewish understanding of the Holy Spirit (Ruach HaKodesh), as described in the provided information:

Divine Messenger: In both traditions, the Holy Spirit is seen as a means through which God communicates with humanity. In Judaism, it’s associated with prophecy and inspiration, while in Islam, it’s linked to bringing divine revelation.
Not a Distinct Person: Similar to Judaism, Islam does not view the Holy Spirit as a distinct person of the Godhead. This contrasts with the Christian concept of the Trinity.
Divine Force or Presence: Both Judaism and Islam see the Holy Spirit more as a divine force or presence rather than a separate entity to be worshipped.
Empowerment: In Judaism, the Holy Spirit is associated with empowering individuals to perform God’s will. Similarly, in Islam, the Holy Spirit (as Gabriel) empowers the Prophet to receive and convey Allah’s message.

However, there are also some differences:

Identification: While Judaism doesn’t typically identify the Holy Spirit with a specific angelic being, Islam often associates it with the angel Gabriel.
Specific Role: In Islam, the Holy Spirit’s role is more specifically tied to the transmission of divine revelation, whereas in Judaism, its role is broader, including general inspiration and prophecy.

It’s important to note that while there are these similarities and differences, the theological frameworks of Judaism and Islam remain distinct, each with its own unique understanding of the nature of God and divine interaction with the world.

Islam as the Restoration of Abraham’s Original Teachings

Islam is considered a restored religion of Abraham, based on the perspective that both Judaism and Christianity have deviated from his original teachings.
Adherents of Islam assert that Judaism has altered the command regarding the sacrifice of Abraham’s son, holding that the son in question was Ishmael rather than Isaac.

Furthermore, they contend that Christianity has diverged from the tenet of monotheism by introducing the concept of the Trinity and modifying the practice of circumcision.
Therefore, from the Islamic viewpoint, Islam embodies the authentic restoration of the teachings of Abraham as presented in the Quran.

Contents

Home

The Priest of Midian: Jethro’s Role in Judaism and Islam

Azahari Hassim

What is Jethro’s religion and what role does he play in the evolution of Judaism?

Jethro, known as Yitro in Hebrew, is a significant figure in the Hebrew Bible. He was a Midianite priest and the father-in-law of Moses. Jethro’s religion, as a Midianite, would have been different from the monotheistic beliefs that Moses later helped establish among the Israelites. However, Jethro is portrayed as a wise and supportive figure in the biblical narrative.

Jethro’s role in the evolution of Judaism is notable for several reasons. He is credited with advising Moses on the establishment of a judicial system to help govern the Israelites more effectively. This advice helped shape the administrative and legal structures that became important in Jewish tradition.

Additionally, Jethro’s acknowledgment of the God of Israel and his offering of sacrifices are seen as an early example of recognizing the God of Israel by someone outside the Israelite community. This interaction highlights themes of wisdom, leadership, and the acknowledgment of monotheism, which are central to Jewish thought.

What is the representation of Jethro in the Quran, and what religions do both Jethro and Moses belong to as per Islamic holy texts?

In the Quran, Jethro is identified with the prophet Shu’ayb. Shu’ayb is considered a prophet sent to the people of Midian to guide them back to the worship of one God and to live righteously. He is known for his wisdom and his strong advocacy for justice and fair dealings in commerce.

As for the religious context, both Shu’ayb (Jethro) and Moses (Musa in Arabic) are considered prophets of Islam. In Islamic tradition, all prophets, including Shu’ayb and Moses, are believed to have preached the same fundamental message of monotheism and submission to the one true God, which is the essence of Islam.

Therefore, both are seen as part of the long line of prophets who conveyed God’s guidance to humanity, culminating in the final prophet, Muhammad.

The Prophethood of Muhammad and the Hebrew Prophets: Exploring Biblical and Theological Foundations

In Genesis, chapter 21 and verse 18, an important prophecy and interaction between God and Hagar regarding Ishmael is mentioned.

The verse states,

“Arise, lift up the lad and hold him with your hand, for I will make him a great nation.“

One hypothesis proposes that the prophethood of the Hebrew prophets is tied to the Torah given to Moses, whereas Muhammad’s prophethood is associated with the prophecy of Hagar which predates the Torah. How is this idea presented?

The hypothesis you mention explores the relationship and distinctions between the prophethood of the Hebrew prophets and that of Muhammad, focusing on their respective biblical and theological foundations. This idea can be presented and analyzed through various religious, historical, and scriptural perspectives:

The prophethood of the Hebrew prophets is often seen as being linked directly to the Torah, which according to Jewish tradition, was given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai. This link is crucial because it establishes a continuous line of prophetic authority and teaching that is rooted in the laws and ethical teachings of the Torah.

The prophets following Moses are considered to have the role of interpreting, enforcing, and expanding upon the Torah’s teachings.

In contrast, Muhammad’s prophethood is sometimes associated with the prophecy attributed to Hagar. Hagar, according to the Genesis account, was the servant of Abraham and Sarah, and mother of Ishmael, who is considered by Muslims to be an ancestor of Muhammad.

This association is used to argue that Muhammad’s prophetic lineage predates the Mosaic Torah and is linked instead to Abrahamic covenant through Ishmael.

This hypothesis suggests that there are distinct covenants in the Abrahamic religions that validate different prophetic traditions. The Hebrew prophets fall under the covenant of Moses and the Sinai revelation, while Muhammad is considered under the covenant given to Abraham and Ishmael (as Hagar’s son).

This distinction is important in Islamic theology which views Islam as a continuation and fulfillment of Abrahamic faith, independent of the Mosaic laws.

The idea also touches upon the nature of the revelations received by the prophets. The Torah is often viewed as a national revelation aimed at the Jewish people, containing civil, moral, and ceremonial laws specifically designed for them.

In contrast, Muhammad’s revelation (the Quran) is considered universal, intended for all humanity, and not tied to the specific legal and ritual practices of the Jews.

By associating Muhammad with a prophecy that predates the Torah, this hypothesis also underscores the notion that prophetic messages have been universal and ongoing throughout human history. This could be seen as an attempt to place Islam within a broader, inclusive prophetic tradition that transcends Jewish ethnic and religious boundaries.

The Final Brick: Interpreting the Connection Between Psalm 118:22 and Prophethood in Islam

Is there any connection between Psalm 118, verse 22 and the conclusion of prophethood with Muhammad, the prophet of Islam?

Allah’s Messenger said, “My similitude in comparison with the other prophets before me, is that of a man who has built a house nicely and beautifully, except for a place of one brick in a corner. The people go about it and wonder at its beauty, but say: ‘Would that this brick be put in its place!’ So I am that brick, and I am the last of the Prophets.

It is believed the above Hadith has connection with Psalm 118, verse 22. How is this argument explained from a Islamic perspective?

The Hadith you’ve mentioned, where the Prophet Muhammad likens his role to that of a final brick completing the edifice of prophethood, is a significant illustration in Islamic teachings, emphasizing his position as the last prophet in a long line of messengers sent by Allah (God) to guide humanity. This Hadith is often cited to highlight the completion of prophetic revelation with Muhammad, affirming the belief in Islam that he is the seal of the prophets (Khatam an-Nabiyyin).

The connection between this Hadith and Psalm 118, verse 22, from the Bible, which reads,

“The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner,”

is seen in the thematic similarity of both references, with the latter often interpreted by scholars as a prophecy about Messiah.
In the context of Islamic interpretation, however, scholars might draw parallels to demonstrate the universal nature of God’s message and the continuity of monotheistic faith, suggesting that both texts metaphorically speak to the importance of recognizing and completing a divine mission or structure.

From an Islamic perspective, the argument linking the Hadith to Psalm 118, verse 22, might be explained in a few ways:

1. Universal Message of Monotheism:

Both texts can be seen as emphasizing the culmination of a divine plan or revelation. In Islam, the prophets are understood to have come with a consistent message of monotheism and submission to the will of God, with Muhammad completing this message. The connection to Psalm 118, verse 22, could be interpreted as an acknowledgment of the universal truth present in previous scriptures, culminating in the final message brought by Muhammad.

2. Rejection and Acceptance:

Psalm 118, verse 22, speaks of a stone rejected by builders that ultimately becomes the cornerstone, which can metaphorically represent the initial rejection and eventual acceptance of a prophet’s message. In Islamic thought, this can parallel the experience of Muhammad and, by extension, the message of Islam, which faced rejection but ultimately established a lasting religious and civilizational foundation.

3. Interfaith Dialogue:

Some scholars might use the similarity between the Hadith and the Psalm to foster interfaith dialogue, pointing out shared themes in Abrahamic religions. This approach emphasizes commonalities in the essence of the messages brought by prophets across these faith traditions.

4. Completion and Perfection of the Divine Message:

The Hadith specifically mentions Muhammad as the final brick, symbolizing the completion of the prophetic tradition. This idea can be seen as paralleled in the notion of a cornerstone in Psalm 118, verse 22, which is crucial for the integrity and completion of a structure. In this context, the argument would focus on the role of Muhammad in completing the cycle of prophetic messages, sealing the divine revelation.

It’s important to note that while drawing parallels, Islamic scholars also maintain the distinctiveness of the Islamic faith and its teachings, viewing the Quran and Hadith as the final and complete revelation of God’s will to humanity.

Why do Jews and Christians not believe in the prophethood of Muhammad?

Jewish tradition holds that prophecy ended with the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, such as Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Therefore, they do not recognize any prophets after this period, including Muhammad.

Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the final and ultimate revelation of God. They do not see the need for another prophet after Jesus, as they believe he fulfilled all prophecies and brought the final covenant.

Surah 13, verse 43 of the Quran reads:

And those who have disbelieved say, “You are not a messenger.” Say, (O Muhammad), “Sufficient is Allah as Witness between me and you, and the witness of whoever has knowledge of the Scripture.”

It is believed that Islam is the restored religion of Abraham, and all Muslims hold the belief that Muhammad is the genuine and final prophet of God. How is this argument expressed within the context of Abrahamic theology?

If Abraham had been instructed by God to sacrifice Ishmael instead of Isaac, it could be argued that Islam and Muhammad have a legitimate claim as a true religion and prophet. This argument can be further explained by examining the differences in the narrative of Abraham’s sacrifice between Islamic and Judeo-Christian traditions.

The story of Abraham being commanded to sacrifice his son is significant in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. However, the key difference lies in the identity of the son involved. In Jewish and Christian traditions, it is Isaac who was nearly sacrificed, while in Islamic tradition, it is believed to be Ishmael. Although Ishmael’s name is not explicitly mentioned in the Quran, Muslims believe that he was the son whom Abraham was instructed to sacrifice.

If one were to argue for the legitimacy of Islam and Muhammad as a prophet based on the premise that Ishmael was the son intended for sacrifice, the argument might be structured as follows:

Shared Abrahamic Roots: All three monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—trace their spiritual lineage to Abraham, recognizing him as a patriarch. The story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son at God’s command is seen as a test of faith in all three traditions.
Islamic Narrative: The Quran (Surah 37, verses 100 to 113) recounts the story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son as a demonstration of his obedience to God. While the Quran does not name the son, the majority of Islamic traditions and interpretations identify the son as Ishmael, the eldest son of Abraham through Hagar. This interpretation is derived from the order of events in the Quran, indicating that the promise of Isaac’s birth occurred after the sacrifice story, leading to the conclusion that Ishmael was the son mentioned.
Prophetic Lineage: In Abrahamic theology, the near sacrifice of Ishmael is regarded as a foreshadowing of Muhammad’s prophethood. This connection between Ishmael’s near-sacrifice and Muhammad’s lineage plays a vital role in confirming Muhammad’s position as a prophet in Islam, serving as a fundamental aspect of the faith and offering valuable insight into the validity of his prophethood.
Preservation of Revelation: Muslims believe that the Quran is the final and unaltered word of God, preserved exactly as it was revealed to Muhammad. They argue that earlier scriptures, such as the Torah and the Bible, have been altered or misinterpreted over time. In this view, the Quran corrects these alterations, and the indication that Ishmael was the son to be sacrificed is seen as the correct version of the story.
Continuity of Prophethood: Islam acknowledges the prophets of Judaism and Christianity but considers Muhammad to be the last prophet, who came to restore the original monotheistic faith and to correct deviations that had entered earlier religions. The story of Ishmael’s near-sacrifice, then, is seen as part of this corrective message.
Theological Implications: The identification of the son in the story of Abraham’s sacrifice holds great significance as it symbolizes the heir of the Abrahamic covenant. In Islamic tradition, designating Ishmael as the son underscores his pivotal role in their religious history and bolsters the credibility of the Islamic faith for Muslims. This underscores the crucial role that lineage and inheritance play within religious narratives.

In conclusion, the narrative of Ishmael as the son intended for sacrifice strengthens Islam’s theological foundation and affirms Muhammad as a prophet. It shows Islam’s connection to the Abrahamic tradition, preservation of divine revelation, and role in restoring monotheistic beliefs. This narrative difference also highlights the interconnectedness and differences among the three Abrahamic faiths, shaping their unique theological identities.

Does the Quran mention Muhammad as the Messiah whom the Jews await?

In the Quran, Muhammad is not explicitly referred to as the Messiah whom the Jews await. However, there is an indirect mention in Surah 2, verse 89, that can be interpreted in this context.

Surah 2, verse 89, states,

“And when there came to them a Book from Allah confirming that which was with them – although before they used to pray for victory against those who disbelieved – but [then] when there came to them that which they recognized, they disbelieved in it; so the curse of Allah will be upon the disbelievers.”

This verse is believed by some scholars and interpreters to refer to a prophecy mentioned in Jewish scriptures about a future prophet who would come after Moses. According to this interpretation, the Jews were awaiting this promised prophet or Messiah.

Muslims believe that Muhammad is the final prophet sent by Allah and consider him as fulfilling various prophecies mentioned in previous religious texts. Therefore, some Muslims interpret Surah 2, verse 89, as indirectly referring to Muhammad as the awaited Messiah.

It’s important to note that interpretations of religious texts can vary among different scholars and individuals. While some may see a connection between Muhammad and the awaited Messiah based on this verse, others may have different interpretations or understandings.

Contents

Home

Anna, Mother of Mary: A Tale of Devotion and Divine Grace in Christian and Islamic Traditions

Azahari Hassim

In the apocryphal gospel, how does Anna, the mother of the Virgin Mary, express her sorrow over her barrenness when she sees a sparrow’s nest in the laurel?

In the apocryphal Gospel of James (also known as the Protoevangelium of James), Anna (or Anne), the mother of the Virgin Mary, laments her barrenness in a touching and poetic way. One of the most vivid moments occurs when she sees a sparrow’s nest in the laurel tree, and this sight causes her to deeply grieve her inability to conceive.

Here’s a summary of the scene:

Anna goes out into the garden and sees birds nesting in the trees. Upon seeing the sparrow’s nest in the laurel, she begins to weep, saying something along these lines:

“Alas! To what am I likened? I am not like the birds of the air, for even the birds are fruitful before God. I am not like the beasts of the earth, for they are also fruitful before God. I am not like these waters, for they abound with fish. I am not like this earth, for it brings forth fruit in season. But I alone am barren.”

This lament reflects Anna’s sorrow and shame in a culture where barrenness was often seen as a sign of divine disfavor. Her emotional reaction to the sparrow’s nest is deeply symbolic — it highlights her longing for motherhood and her feeling of being out of step with the natural, fruitful world around her.

How is Anna, the mother of Mary, portrayed in the Qur’an?

Anna, the mother of Mary (known in Islamic tradition as Hannah), is not mentioned by name in the Qur’an, but her story is beautifully preserved and told in Surah Al-Imran (3:35–37). She is referred to simply as the wife of Imran (Imran being the father of Mary), and she plays a key role in the sacred narrative.

Here’s a summary of how she is depicted in the Qur’an:

1. A Pious Woman Devoted to God

Anna is portrayed as a devout and righteous woman, who, longing for a child, prays earnestly to God. She makes a vow to dedicate her unborn child to the service of God in the temple.

Qur’an Surah 3, verse 35
“When the wife of Imran said, ‘My Lord, indeed I have pledged to You what is in my womb, consecrated [for Your service], so accept this from me. Indeed, You are the Hearing, the Knowing.’”

2. Surprise at Giving Birth to a Girl

When Anna gives birth to a daughter (Mary), she is initially surprised, perhaps expecting a boy, who would typically serve in the temple. Nevertheless, she trusts in God’s wisdom.

Qur’an Surah 3, verse 36

“But when she delivered her, she said, ‘My Lord, I have delivered a female’ – and Allah was most knowing of what she delivered – ‘and the male is not like the female. And I have named her Mary, and I seek refuge for her in You and [for] her descendants from Satan, the expelled.’”

3. Her Prayer is Accepted

God accepts her sincere offering. Mary is raised under divine care, and entrusted to Zechariah, who becomes her guardian.

Qur’an Surah3, verse 37

“So her Lord accepted her with good acceptance and caused her to grow in a good manner and put her in the care of Zechariah…”

In Summary:

Anna (the mother of Mary and grandmother of Jesus) is depicted in the Qur’an as a faithful, God-fearing woman, whose sincere prayer and dedication result in the birth of Maryam, the most honored woman in Islamic tradition. Her story is a testament to the power of prayer, devotion, and trust in divine wisdom, even when life unfolds differently than expected.

Mary, the mother of Jesus, in the Talmud and the Quran

Is there any reference about Mary, the mother of Jesus, in the Talmud directly or indirectly?

Yes, there are a few references to Mary, the mother of Jesus, in the Talmud, although they are indirect and brief. It’s important to note that the Talmud is a collection of Jewish oral law and commentary, primarily focused on Jewish religious and legal matters. Mary is mentioned in the Talmud in relation to discussions about Jesus and his background. However, it’s worth mentioning that these references are generally considered to be from a Jewish perspective and may differ from Christian beliefs about Mary.

What is the content of her background in the Talmud?

In the Talmud, Mary’s background is mentioned in passages that discuss Jesus and his lineage. One such reference can be found in the Babylonian Talmud, in the tractate Sanhedrin 106a. This passage states that Jesus was the son of Mary, who was married to a man named Pandera (also known as Panthera or Pappos ben Yehuda). It suggests that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, implying that his mother had an extramarital relationship.

How does the Quran clear her name from the accusation of the Jews in the Talmud?

In the Quran, Mary is highly revered and her name is cleared from any accusation or wrongdoing. The Quran portrays Mary as a pious and virtuous woman chosen by Allah for a special purpose. She is depicted as a symbol of devotion and righteousness.

Regarding the accusation against Mary, the Quran addresses this in Surah Maryam (Chapter 19). It narrates the story of Mary’s miraculous conception and the birth of Jesus. When Mary returns with the baby Jesus, her people express astonishment and accuse her of engaging in immoral behavior. However, in response, the infant Jesus miraculously speaks and defends his mother’s honor. He declares his prophethood and affirms Mary’s purity and righteousness.

This episode in the Quran emphasizes Mary’s innocence and counters any accusations made against her. It reinforces her esteemed status as a pure and revered figure in Islamic tradition, clearing her name from any wrongdoing or moral transgressions.

Mary in the Quran and the New Testament

How does the portrayal and veneration of Mary differ between the Quran and the New Testament?

The Quran and the New Testament both have stories about Mary, the mother of Jesus, and they both show reverence for her as a virtuous and chosen woman. However, there are also some differences in their treatment of Mary, such as:

The Quran mentions Mary by name 34 times, while the New Testament mentions her by name only 19 times.
The Quran has a whole chapter named after Mary, that is Surah Maryam, while the New Testament does not have any book or chapter named after her.
The Quran describes Mary as a prophetess, a word from God, and a sign for the worlds, while the New Testament does not give her these titles.

The Quran narrates the story of Mary’s birth, her dedication to the temple, and her encounter with the angel Gabriel in detail, while the New Testament only briefly mentions these events.
The Quran affirms Mary’s perpetual virginity, while the New Testament implies that she had other children after Jesus.

The Quran does not mention Mary’s role in Jesus’ ministry, crucifixion, resurrection, or ascension, while the New Testament depicts her as a faithful follower and witness of Jesus.
The Quran does not mention Mary’s assumption into heaven, while the New Testament hints at it and the Catholic Church teaches it as a dogma.

These differences show that the Quran and the New Testament have different perspectives and emphases on Mary’s life and significance. They also reflect the different sources and traditions that influenced their authors. However, they also share some common ground in honoring Mary as a blessed and exemplary woman.

Exploring the Lineage of Mary and Jesus: Quranic References and Christian Traditions

In the Quran, Mary is referred to as a sister of Aaron in order to attribute her and Jesus to the clan of Levi rather than Judah as Christians maintain. How is this interpretation presented?

The Quran refers to Mary as a sister of Aaron (in Arabic: “Ukht Harun”) for symbolic purposes, and not in the literal sense that she was Aaron’s biological sister. This phrase was commonly used in the Arab tradition to denote that a person belongs to a certain lineage or tribe, not to indicate sibling relationship.

In Surah 19, verses 27 to 28, when Mary comes to her people carrying Jesus, they exclaim: “O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste.” This exclamation shows her high ranking lineage, as she comes from the noble lineage of Prophet Aaron, who was of the tribe of Levi.

By referring to Mary as a sister of Aaron, it is believed that the Quranic text is emphasizing her noble lineage and connection to the righteous family of prophets. This interpretation also serves to differentiate Mary and Jesus from the tribe of Judah, which is traditionally associated with Christianity.

Overall, this interpretation highlights the importance of lineage and heritage in Islamic belief, while also emphasizing the spiritual significance of Mary and Jesus within Islamic tradition.

Contrary to the portrayal in the Quran, the Christian gospel states that Jesus is recognized as a descendant of Judah and David through his adoptive father, Joseph. This ancestry is important as it fulfills Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah descending from Judah and David.

Jesus is commonly known as the “Son of David” due to this lineage. It is worth mentioning that even though he is not biologically related to Joseph, Jesus is still considered part of the lineage through his adoption.

Contents

Home

Islamic Interpretation of Daniel 7: The Fifth Kingdom as the Rise of Islam

Azahari Hassim

In contrast, certain Islamic scholars assert that the fifth kingdom, which they identify as the kingdom of God, corresponds to Islam, as it arose subsequent to the Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire. What is the rationale behind this interpretation?

The Islamic interpretation of the prophecy in Daniel 7, which identifies the “fifth kingdom” (the kingdom of God) with Islam, is based on historical and theological reasoning. Here are the key points behind this interpretation:

1. Historical Succession of Empires

Daniel 7 describes four beasts representing four successive kingdoms. Many biblical scholars identify these as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.
Islam emerged in the 7th century CE, after the decline of the Western Roman Empire and during the weakening of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire. Since Daniel’s vision mentions the establishment of God’s kingdom after the fourth empire, some Islamic scholars argue that Islam, which emerged after Rome, fulfills this prophecy.

2. The Fall of the Byzantine Empire and the Rise of Islam

The Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire was a dominant power before Islam’s expansion. Islamic scholars argue that with the conquests of the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates, Islam effectively replaced Byzantine rule in large parts of the Mediterranean, the Levant, and North Africa.
The rapid spread of Islam and its dominance over former Roman territories is seen as a fulfillment of the prophecy that a divine kingdom would supersede worldly empires.

3. The Concept of God’s Kingdom in Islam

Jesus did not equate the kingdom of God that he preached with the religion of Christianity. Rather, the concept of the “kingdom of God” is frequently linked to the arrival of a figure resembling a son of man as described in Daniel 7.
Islamic scholars, however, interpret God’s kingdom as a system of governance based on divine law (Sharia). Since Islam established a political-religious order that claimed to rule by divine law, it is seen as fulfilling the vision of God’s kingdom replacing human empires.

4. Islam as a Universal and Everlasting Kingdom

Daniel 7, verse 14 describes the final kingdom as one that will never be destroyed. Islamic scholars argue that Islam, despite historical challenges, continues to be a major global faith and political influence.
The continuity of Islam as a religious and civilizational force is seen as evidence that it aligns with the prophecy of a kingdom that endures.

5. The Role of Prophet Muhammad in Quranic Prophecy

Some Islamic scholars extend this interpretation by linking it to prophecies about a future religion of Islam. They cite Surah 61, verse 9 of the Quran:

“He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse.”

Muhammad’s establishment of a religious-political order is viewed as the fulfillment of the divine kingdom prophesied in Daniel.
Conclusion

Islamic scholars interpret Daniel 7’s prophecy through a historical and theological lens, identifying Islam as the divine kingdom that follows Rome. They argue that Islam’s rise, territorial expansion, and legal-political system based on divine law fulfill the vision of a God-ordained kingdom that replaces human rule.

Consistency in Belief: Comparing the Night Journey of Muhammad and Daniel’s Vision

It is believed that those who deny the Night Journey of the prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem, followed by his ascension to the seventh heaven to meet God, resemble the arguments of those who dismiss Daniel’s vision at night in Daniel 7, verse 13. How is this argument articulated?

The argument comparing the denial of the Isra and Mi’raj (the Night Journey and Ascension of the Prophet Muhammad) to the dismissal of Daniel’s vision in Daniel 7, verse 13 is articulated based on the following parallels:

1. Both Events Are Supernatural and Nighttime Experiences

The Isra and Mi’raj describe Prophet Muhammad’s journey from Mecca to Jerusalem and his ascension through the heavens, ultimately meeting God. This event is considered miraculous and beyond ordinary physical experiences.
Daniel 7, verse 13 states: “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.”
This is also a supernatural vision that occurs at night and describes an ascent toward the Divine.

2. Skepticism Toward Mystical or Spiritual Journeys

Critics of Isra and Mi’raj argue that such a physical and spiritual journey is implausible, similar to how some interpret Daniel’s vision as metaphorical rather than an actual event.
The argument suggests that if one denies the reality of Muhammad’s ascension on the basis of it being supernatural, they would logically also have to deny Daniel’s night vision using the same reasoning.

3. Heavenly Ascent and Divine Presence

In both cases, the central figure ascends toward a divine presence:
Muhammad ascends through the seven heavens, meeting prophets and ultimately reaching the Divine Presence.
Daniel sees one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven to stand before the Ancient of Days, a scene often interpreted as a meeting with God.

4. Implication of Denial: Consistency in Theological Interpretation

If one dismisses Muhammad’s ascension as merely metaphorical or fabricated, they must question whether Daniel’s vision was also just symbolic.
This challenges those (particularly in the Abrahamic faith traditions) who accept Daniel’s vision as authentic revelation but reject Muhammad’s journey on the grounds of improbability.

Conclusion

This argument is used to highlight consistency in belief regarding divine visions and supernatural events. If one affirms that Daniel’s vision describes a genuine, divinely granted experience, then logically, they should not outright dismiss the Isra and Mi’raj on the same grounds. Instead, they should engage with both narratives under a coherent theological framework.

The Prophecy of Daniel: Constantine the Great and Muhammad the Prophet

Some believe that Daniel 7, verse 25 alludes to Constantine the Great, who presided over the council of Nicaea, while Daniel 7, verse 13, points to Muhammad’s Night Journey. How is this argument explained?

They claim that Constantine the Great, who was the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity and who convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, was the little horn of Daniel 7, verse 25, who spoke pompous words against the Most High and tried to change the times and the laws.

They argue that Constantine corrupted the original teachings of Jesus and imposed his own doctrines and creeds on the Christian church, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the observance of Sunday instead of Saturday as the Sabbath, and the celebration of Easter instead of Passover.

They also accuse Constantine of persecuting and oppressing those who did not conform to his version of Christianity, such as the followers of Arianism, who denied the divinity of Jesus.

Arianism sparked significant debates within the Church, particularly during the early Ecumenical Councils. The First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD condemned Arianism, affirming the doctrine of the Trinity and the full divinity of Christ. The Nicene Creed established the belief that the Son is “begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father.”

Islamic scholars claim that Muhammad, who was the prophet of Islam and who claimed to have a miraculous Night Journey from Mecca to Jerusalem and then to heaven in 621 AD, was the Son of Man of Daniel 7, verse 13, who came with the clouds of heaven and was given dominion, glory, and a kingdom by the Ancient of Days, that is God.

The term “night visions” directly suggests an event that takes place at night. Muhammad’s Night Journey, which is said to have occurred during the night, aligns with this description. In contrast, Jesus’ ascension is generally not described as happening at night in Christian texts.

They argue that Muhammad was a true prophet of God who restored the pure monotheism that was lost by Constantine and his followers. They also assert that Muhammad’s kingdom is an everlasting kingdom that will never be destroyed, and that all nations and peoples of every language will serve him or submit to his law.

In summary, these are a few points made by Islamic scholars to back the notion that Daniel 7, verse 25, and 7, verse 13, refer to Constantine as the little horn who established the Trinity at the Council of Nicea, and Muhammad as the Son of Man who encountered God on his Night Journey to the seventh heaven.

The Covenant of Abraham: A Comparison Between the Bible and the Quran

According to biblical scripture, it is recorded that God established a covenant with Abraham through his son Isaac, rather than his firstborn Ishmael. Conversely, the Quran presents a different perspective by indicating that the covenant was made with Ishmael instead of Isaac. How does the Quran describe this?

Surah 2, verses 124 to 125 of the Quran read:

“And when his Lord tested Abraham with certain words, and he fulfilled them. God said, “I am making you a leader of humanity.” Abraham said, “And my descendants?” God said, “My covenant does not include the wrongdoers.”
“And We made the House a focal point for the people, and a sanctuary. Use the shrine of Abraham as a place of prayer. And We commissioned Abraham and Ishmael, “Sanctify My House for those who circle around it, and those who seclude themselves in it, and those who kneel and prostrate.”

The phrase “And when his Lord tested Abraham with certain words,” presented in verse 124, is understood by Quranic commentators to refer to the tests and commands that God imparted to Abraham. These included leaving his family in a barren land, sacrificing his son Ishmael, rebuilding the Kaaba (House of God), and instituting the rite of circumcision.

The Quran clearly states in Surah 2, verse 124 that God made a covenant with Abraham through his son Ishmael, not Isaac. The covenant was established prior to the birth of Isaac, who is regarded as a divine gift to Abraham and Sarah, a result of Abraham’s readiness to offer Ishmael as a sacrifice.

In this context, Ishmael is understood as a son dedicated to God, whereas Isaac is considered a son of blessing for Abraham and Sarah. This contradicts the Biblical account which portrays Isaac as the son who was to inherit the covenant from Abraham.

According to the Quran and Islamic tradition, the Biblical account was distorted to diminish Ishmael’s status as Abraham’s heir in favor of Isaac. This alteration is thought to stem from the bias of Jewish scribes toward the Israelite lineage.

The Quran asserts that it rectifies this distortion by confirming Ishmael as the son who carried on Abraham’s legacy in accordance with the original divine covenant. Additionally, the divine selection of the ancient Israelites and their Hebrew prophets before the advent of Islam is seen as a preparation for the arrival of Muhammad, the final Prophet.

Heir to Abraham: Isaac vs. Ishmael

The phrase “Heir to Abraham: Isaac vs. Ishmael” pertains to the biblical narrative surrounding Abraham, who is regarded as the progenitor of both Isaac and Ishmael. In the biblical account, God assures Abraham that he will have a son, leading to the birth of two sons: Isaac, born to his wife Sarah, and Ishmael, born to his servant Hagar.

The competition between Isaac and Ishmael arises from their respective positions as heirs to Abraham’s legacy. Within Jewish tradition, Isaac is recognized as the legitimate heir and the primary recipient of God’s covenant with Abraham, while Ishmael is frequently depicted as an outsider or a rejected figure.

Conversely, Islamic tradition perceives Ishmael as a fruit of Abraham, wheras Isaac is considered a divine gift given to Abraham and Sarah during their later years, due to Abraham’s obedience in leaving the infant Ishmael and his mother in the desert near the Kaaba (the house of God), as well as his willingness to sacrifice Ishmael.

I seek clarification regarding the interpretation of this argument.

In the Islamic tradition, Ishmael is regarded as a symbol of Abraham’s initial struggle and test of faith, while Isaac represents the ultimate reward for his unwavering obedience to God. The narrative of Abraham leaving infant Ishmael and his mother in the desert near the Kaaba illustrates Abraham’s trust in God’s plan, even when confronted with difficult decisions.

Abraham’s readiness to sacrifice Ishmael further underscores his complete submission to God’s will, as he was willing to relinquish the most precious thing in his life without hesitation. This act of devotion holds great significance in Islamic teachings and serves as a compelling example of faith and obedience.

As a reward for Abraham’s steadfastness and willingness to follow God’s commands — both in leaving infant Ishmael and Hagar in the desert and in his willingness to sacrifice Ishmael — God granted Abraham and Sarah a miraculous gift: the birth of Isaac in their old age.

This divine blessing signified God’s recognition of Abraham’s faith and further cemented his role as a patriarch of monotheistic faith, with both Ishmael and Isaac becoming the forebears of great nations.

This narrative highlights the interconnected themes of sacrifice, trust, and divine reward, demonstrating that true faith is met with God’s grace and fulfillment of His promises.

The Quran asserts that it rectifies the biblical narrative surrounding Abraham by confirming Ishmael as the son who carried on Abraham’s legacy in accordance with the Abrahamic covenant.

Additionally, the divine selection of the ancient Israelites and their Hebrew prophets under the Sinai covenant before the advent of Islam is seen as a precursor to the coming of Muhammad, the last Prophet.

Contents

Home

Consistency in Belief: Comparing the Night Journey of Muhammad and Daniel’s Vision

Azahari Hassim

1. Both Events Are Supernatural and Nighttime Experiences

2. Skepticism Toward Mystical or Spiritual Journeys

3. Heavenly Ascent and Divine Presence

4. Implication of Denial: Consistency in Theological Interpretation

Conclusion

**Council of Nicaea – Key Points**
**Location and Date**: Convened in Nicaea (modern İznik, Turkey) in 325 AD by Emperor Constantine I.
**Purpose**: To resolve theological disputes, especially Arianism, and establish a unified Christian doctrine.
**Arian Controversy**: Arianism questioned the divinity of Jesus. The council affirmed that Jesus is “true God from true God.”
**Nicene Creed**: Produced a statement of faith that defines the nature of Christ and the Trinity, still used in many denominations today.
**Other Decisions**: Addressed the date of Easter and church governance.
**Significance**: Marked the first ecumenical council in Christian history, shaping foundational Christian beliefs.

The Prophecy of Daniel: Constantine the Great and Muhammad the Prophet

This is a very controversial argument that is not widely accepted by most biblical scholars and Christians, who believe that Daniel 7, verse 25, and Daniel 7, verse 13, refer to the Antichrist and the Messiah, respectively. However, some people who support this argument explain it in the following way:
They claim that Constantine the Great, who was the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity and who convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, was the little horn of Daniel 7, verse 25, who spoke pompous words against the Most High and tried to change the times and the laws.

They also accuse Constantine of persecuting and oppressing those who did not conform to his version of Christianity, such as the followers of Arianism, who denied the divinity of Jesus.
Arianism sparked significant debates within the Church, particularly during the early Ecumenical Councils. The First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD condemned Arianism, affirming the doctrine of the Trinity and the full divinity of Christ. The Nicene Creed established the belief that the Son is “begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father.”

Islamic Interpretation of Daniel 7: The Fifth Kingdom as the Rise of Islam

Numerous biblical scholars maintain that the four beasts described in Daniel 7 symbolize four distinct kingdoms: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Subsequently, the establishment of the kingdom of God is noted. In contrast, certain Islamic scholars assert that the fifth kingdom, which they identify as the kingdom of God, corresponds to Islam, as it arose subsequent to the Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire. What is the rationale behind this interpretation?

1. Historical Succession of Empires

2. The Fall of the Byzantine Empire and the Rise of Islam

3. The Concept of God’s Kingdom in Islam

4. Islam as a Universal and Everlasting Kingdom

5. The Role of Prophet Muhammad in Quranic Prophecy

Some Islamic scholars extend this interpretation by linking it to prophecies about a future religion of Islam. They cite Surah 61, verse 9 of the Quran:

“He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse.”

Muhammad’s establishment of a religious-political order is viewed as the fulfillment of the divine kingdom prophesied in Daniel.
Conclusion

Contents

Home

David Ben-Gurion’s Ancestral Theory: Linking Palestinians to Ancient Jews

Azahari Hassim

David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, held the belief that Palestinians are, in fact, descendants of ancient Jews. What is the rationale behind his argument?

David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, indeed expressed the belief that many Palestinians were descendants of ancient Jews who had remained in the land after the Roman expulsions and converted to Islam over the centuries. His rationale was rooted in historical, sociological, and ideological perspectives. Here’s a breakdown of his reasoning:

Historical Continuity

Ben-Gurion believed that not all Jews left the land of Israel after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE or the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE. Many remained and lived continuously in the region. Over the centuries, due to pressures such as Byzantine persecution and later Islamic rule, many of these Jews may have converted to Christianity and then to Islam, gradually assimilating into the surrounding Arab culture.

Cultural and Linguistic Clues

He and other early Zionist thinkers pointed to certain cultural practices among Palestinian peasants (fellahin) that seemed to reflect Jewish traditions, such as agricultural techniques, dietary habits, and even some customs around holidays. They saw these as remnants of Jewish life that had survived despite religious conversions.

Zionist Ideology

Ben-Gurion’s view also served a broader ideological purpose. By emphasizing the deep-rooted connection of Jews to the land—and even suggesting that some Arabs were actually Jews by ancestry—he aimed to strengthen the Jewish claim to the land. It suggested a kind of shared heritage, potentially easing tensions or legitimizing Zionist aspirations in the eyes of skeptics.

Sources and Scholarship

Ben-Gurion studied Jewish history intensively and collaborated with historians like Yitzhak Baer. In private writings and public statements, he sometimes referenced scholarship that supported this view of demographic continuity between ancient Jewish populations and modern Arab inhabitants of Palestine.

While Ben-Gurion’s position is historically debatable and not universally accepted, it remains a notable example of how leaders sometimes use history to craft narratives of identity, legitimacy, and connection to land.

Reimagining Gog and Magog: Could Zionism Fulfill an Ancient Prophecy?

What if everything we thought about biblical prophecy was backwards?

Ben Gurion’s Forgotten Statement

Ezekiel’s Prophecy: Who Are the Invaders?

Islamic Prophecy Echoes the Same Story

The hadith, reported in Sunan Ibn Majah, states:

“The Muslims will burn the weapons of Gog and Magog for seven years.”

This clearly echoes Ezekiel 39, verse 9.

Zionism as Gog and Magog?

What if the modern Zionist movement, especially in its militant or nationalist forms, fits the pattern of Gog and Magog more than anyone else?

Here’s the logic behind that idea:
Gog and Magog are portrayed as powerful, aggressive forces invading and dominating the land.
Zionism, since its emergence, has involved the displacement and suppression of the native Palestinian population—many of whom, if Ben Gurion was right, are descendants of ancient Jews.
That would mean the “invaders” are not returning natives, but foreign powers acting in the name of divine destiny while pushing out the true heirs of the land.

This reversal is uncomfortable, even shocking. But it asks a question worth pondering: Has the prophetic script been flipped?

Seven Years of Burning: A Symbolic Cleansing

If Palestinians are the ones who remain after the storm, perhaps these prophecies are not just about survival, but about spiritual and historical vindication.

Rethinking the Inheritance

Maybe the real question isn’t just who inherits the land—but who carries forward the legacy of the ancient covenant. Not in name alone, but in blood, soil, and spirit.

Final Thought

Sometimes prophecy isn’t about the future—it’s a mirror held up to the present. And sometimes, the people we think are the villains in a story turn out to be its forgotten heroes.

Shlomo Sand’s Controversial Perspective on Palestinian and Jewish Historical Identity

What is the argument of Shlomo Sand’s belief that the Palestinians are the descendants of the biblical Jews of Jesus?

Shlomo Sand, an Israeli historian, argues in his book “The Invention of the Jewish People” that the Palestinians are the descendants of the biblical Jews of Jesus. His argument challenges the traditional notion that Jews are a single, homogeneous ethnic group with an unbroken bloodline tracing back to biblical times.

Sand also argues that the conversion of the Khazar people, a Turkic-speaking group, to Judaism in the 8th century played a significant role in the formation of Eastern European Jewry. He suggests that many Ashkenazi Jews, who form a significant part of the Jewish population today, are descendants of the Khazars rather than the ancient Israelites.

In relation to the Palestinians, Sand proposes that they are the descendants of the Jewish population that existed in the region during the time of Jesus and later converted to Islam and assimilated with the Arab population. He argues that the notion of a “return” of the Jewish people to their ancestral homeland is a political and ideological construct rather than a historical fact.

It’s important to note that Shlomo Sand’s arguments have sparked debates and discussions within academic and intellectual circles, and they are not universally accepted. His views challenge conventional understandings of Jewish identity and history, and they have generated both support and criticism from various scholars and experts.

Shlomo Sand argues that the modern-day Palestinians are largely descended from the Jewish people who lived in the region during the time of Jesus. He believes that many of the Jewish people in the region were not actually expelled after the destruction of the Second Temple, as traditional Jewish history claims, but instead converted to Christianity and Islam. Sand’s argument challenges the traditional Zionist narrative of Jewish history, which sees the modern Jewish people as the direct descendants of the biblical Jews. Instead, he asserts that the Palestinians have a historical connection to the land that is just as deep as the Jewish connection. This challenges the idea of a purely Jewish state in the region and supports the Palestinian claim to their homeland.

Shlomo Sand is an Israeli historian, author, and professor. He is known for his controversial and thought-provoking writings on the history of the Jewish people and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sand has challenged traditional narratives about Jewish history and identity, and his work has sparked debate and discussion among scholars and the public. Sand is a professor of history at Tel Aviv University and has written several books on topics such as nationalism, the origins of the Jewish people, and the history of the Middle East. His work has been translated into multiple languages and has had a significant impact on the fields of history and political science.

Exploring the Connection Between Gog, Magog, and the Khazars in the Jewish Encyclopedia

How does Jewish Encyclopedia make a connection between people of Gog and Magog and the Khazars?

Contents

Home

Imran Hosein on Gog and Magog: Insights from Jerusalem in the Quran

Azahari Hassim

In his thought-provoking book Jerusalem in the Qur’an, Islamic scholar Imran Hosein presents a comprehensive eschatological interpretation of modern world events through the lens of the Qur’an and Hadith.

The book focuses particularly on the religious and geopolitical significance of Jerusalem, the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the role of Gog and Magog (Yajuj and Majuj) in shaping the modern age.

Imran Hosein connects classical Islamic prophecies with contemporary events, offering a controversial but detailed worldview in which Western civilization, Zionism, and global economic systems are deeply tied to the Qur’anic narrative of the end times.

Who are Gog and Magog according to the author?

According to the author, Imran Hosein, Gog and Magog (Yajuj and Majuj) are described as agents of corruption, oppression, and wickedness in the world. They are human communities endowed with invincible power by Allah Most High, and their release into the world signifies the commencement of the Last Age.

The author identifies modern European civilization, particularly the secular and godless aspects of it, as embodying the characteristics of Gog and Magog. He argues that Gog and Magog are responsible for the return of the Jews to the Holy Land and the establishment of the State of Israel, which he views as part of a divine plan leading to the ultimate punishment of the Jews. The author also links Gog and Magog to the global dominance of Riba (usury) and the political and economic oppression prevalent in the modern world.

What is the argument of the author that Gog and Magog have been released?

The author, Imran Hosein, argues that Gog and Magog have been released based on several points:

1. Prophetic Evidence: The author cites various Ahadith from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, which indicate that the release of Gog and Magog occurred during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). For instance, the Prophet mentioned that a hole had been opened in the dam of Gog and Magog, signifying their release.

2. Historical Events: Imran Hosein points to the dramatic changes in European civilization, which transformed from pagan to Christian and then to a largely godless, secular civilization. He views this transformation as evidence of the release of Gog and Magog, who are described as agents of corruption and oppression.

3. Return of the Jews to the Holy Land: The author interprets the return of the Jews to Jerusalem and the establishment of the State of Israel as a sign of the release of Gog and Magog. He refers to the Qur’anic verse (Surah 21, verses 95 to 96) which states that the people of a town (interpreted as Jerusalem) destroyed by Allah would not return until Gog and Magog are released and spread out in every direction.

4. Global Dominance and Corruption: Imran Hosein argues that the current global dominance of secular Western civilization, characterized by political Shirk (associating partners with Allah) and economic Riba (usury), is indicative of the influence of Gog and Magog. He believes that the widespread corruption, oppression, and economic exploitation in the modern world are manifestations of their presence.

5. Prophetic Predictions: The author also refers to the prophecy of Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) that the age of Dajjal (the False Messiah) would be marked by the universal prevalence of Riba. He sees the current global economic system, which is heavily based on usury, as fulfilling this prophecy and further evidence of the release of Gog and Magog.

In summary, Imran Hosein’s argument that Gog and Magog have been released is based on prophetic evidence, historical transformations in European civilization, the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, the global dominance of secular and corrupt systems, and the fulfillment of prophetic predictions regarding the prevalence of Riba.

How are Khazars related to Ashkenazi Jews?

According to the author, Imran Hosein, the Khazars are related to Ashkenazi Jews through their conversion to Judaism. He explains that the Khazar tribes of Eastern Europe embraced Judaism around the seventh century for essentially political reasons rather than faith. These Khazars, who were originally a European people, converted to Judaism and subsequently became known as Ashkenazi Jews.

Imran Hosein argues that the Ashkenazi Jews, who are predominantly of European origin, differ significantly from the Israelite Jews who trace their ancestry to Abraham (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). He points out that modern Israel comprises large numbers of Jews who are a pure European people with blue eyes and blond hair, indicating a racial difference from the original Israelite Jews.

The author suggests that the Ashkenazi Jews have played a significant role in the establishment of the Zionist movement and the creation of the State of Israel. He views their involvement as part of a larger divine plan involving Gog and Magog, leading to the ultimate punishment of the Jews.

In summary, Imran Hosein links the Khazars to Ashkenazi Jews through their historical conversion to Judaism and highlights the racial and political differences between Ashkenazi Jews and the original Israelite Jews.

How are Gog and Magog related to Ashkenazi Jews?

Imran Hosein argues that Gog and Magog are related to Ashkenazi Jews through their historical and geopolitical actions. Here are the key points of his argument:

1. Historical Transformation:

Imran Hosein suggests that the Khazar tribes of Eastern Europe, who converted to Judaism in the seventh century, are linked to Gog and Magog. He believes that these Khazars, who became known as Ashkenazi Jews, played a significant role in transforming European civilization from paganism to Christianity and then to a largely godless, secular civilization.

2. Role in Zionism:

The author argues that Ashkenazi Jews, who are predominantly of European origin, were instrumental in establishing the Zionist movement and the creation of the State of Israel. He views their involvement as part of the larger divine plan involving Gog and Magog, leading to the ultimate punishment of the Jews.

3. Global Dominance and Corruption:

Imran Hosein asserts that the current global dominance of secular Western civilization, characterized by political Shirk (associating partners with Allah) and economic Riba (usury), is indicative of the influence of Gog and Magog. He believes that the widespread corruption, oppression, and economic exploitation in the modern world are manifestations of their presence.

4. Return to the Holy Land:

The author interprets the return of the Jews to Jerusalem and the establishment of the State of Israel as a sign of the release of Gog and Magog. He refers to the Qur’anic verse (Surah 21, verses 95 to 96) which states that the people of a town (interpreted as Jerusalem) destroyed by Allah would not return until Gog and Magog are released and spread out in every direction.

In summary, Imran Hosein links Gog and Magog to Ashkenazi Jews through their historical conversion to Judaism, their role in the Zionist movement, their influence in global dominance and corruption, and their return to the Holy Land. He views these actions as part of a larger divine plan involving Gog and Magog, leading to the ultimate punishment of the Jews.

*Devil, Gog and Magog attack the Holy City (from a 17th-century Russian manuscript)*

In what manner does the author associate Western civilization with Gog and Magog?

Imran Hosein associates Western civilization with Gog and Magog through several key arguments:

1. Historical Transformation:

Imran Hosein suggests that the transformation of Europe from paganism to Christianity and then to a largely godless, secular civilization is indicative of the influence of Gog and Magog. He argues that this transformation was orchestrated by Gog and Magog, leading to the emergence of a powerful and dominant Western civilization.

2. Global Dominance:

The author asserts that the current global dominance of Western civilization, characterized by its political, economic, and cultural influence, is a manifestation of Gog and Magog’s control over the world. He believes that Gog and Magog have taken control of the world and established a world order based on corruption, oppression, and wickedness.

3. Political Shirk and Economic Riba:

Imran Hosein argues that the political system of the modern secular state, which is based on Shirk (associating partners with Allah) and the economic system based on Riba (usury), are clear signs of Gog and Magog’s influence. He views the widespread acceptance of these systems as evidence of Gog and Magog’s dominance.

4. Role in Zionism:

The author links Gog and Magog to the establishment of the Zionist movement and the creation of the State of Israel. He believes that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land and the establishment of Israel are part of Gog and Magog’s plan to deceive the Jews and lead them to their ultimate destruction.

5. Corruption and Decadence:

Imran Hosein points to the corruption, immorality, and decadence prevalent in Western civilization as further evidence of Gog and Magog’s influence. He argues that the modern world, with its materialism, sexual immorality, and exploitation, reflects the characteristics of Gog and Magog.

6. Qur’anic Prophecy:

The author refers to the Qur’anic verse (surah 21, verses 95 to 96) which states that the people of a town (interpreted as Jerusalem) destroyed by Allah would not return until Gog and Magog are released and spread out in every direction. He interprets this as a sign that Western civilization, under the influence of Gog and Magog, has facilitated the return of the Jews to the Holy Land.

In summary, Imran Hosein associates Western civilization with Gog and Magog through its historical transformation, global dominance, political and economic systems, role in Zionism, corruption and decadence, and Qur’anic prophecy. He views these aspects as evidence of Gog and Magog’s control over the world and their influence on Western civilization.

Do Muslim scholars of today fail to recognise the emergence of Gog and Magog in this last age?

The following section is an excerpt from the book entitled Jerusalem in the Quran by Imran Hossein.

”But the saddest response of all to ‘Jerusalem in the Quran’ has come from those of the respected scholars of Islam who have summarily rejected the book on the basis of the argument that Gog and Magog will not be released into the world until after the true Messiah (Jesus) has killed Dajjal, the false Messiah (even a simple common sense approach to the subject makes it clear that such a belief makes no sense at all).

And so they resolutely refuse to accept the present world order as that of Gog and Magog and they await the return of the true Messiah (Jesus) for the release of Gog and Magog. They are sadly and woefully mistaken. Indeed they are making a mountain of a mistake. The price that they pay is to be imprisoned with a dangerous and woeful incapacity to understand the world today, and an even greater incapacity to anticipate events which are unfolding so ominously and so rapidly in today’s strange world.

In consequence they are unable to respond appropriately to the awesome challenges of the age in which we now live.“

The Mystery of Yajuj and Majuj: The Wall and Their Identity

The Wall of Yajuj and Majuj (Gog and Magog) is a concept found in Islamic eschatology, as well as in various Judeo-Christian traditions. In Islamic texts, particularly the Quran, Yajuj and Majuj are described as two tribes or nations that will emerge in the end times, causing chaos and destruction.

According to Islamic tradition, the wall was built by Dhul-Qarnayn, a figure often associated with a great king or conqueror, to contain these tribes and prevent them from spreading corruption and chaos across the land. The wall is said to be made of iron and copper, and it is located in a remote area, often interpreted as being in the region of the Caucasus Mountains.

In the Quran, the story is mentioned in Surah Al-Kahf (Surah 18, verses 94 to 97), where Dhul-Qarnayn encounters a people who are troubled by Yajuj and Majuj. He helps them by constructing a barrier to protect them from these tribes.

In eschatological beliefs, it is said that before the Day of Judgment, the wall will be breached, and Yajuj and Majuj will be unleashed upon the world, leading to widespread turmoil and destruction.

The figures of Gog and Magog also appear in the Bible, particularly in the Book of Ezekiel and the Book of Revelation, where they are associated with apocalyptic events and the final battle between good and evil.

The concept of Yajuj and Majuj serves as a reminder of the trials and tribulations that are believed to precede the end of times in various religious traditions.

Most researchers have found the wall of Yajuj and Majuj, but they are unclear and confused about the identities of Yajuj and Majuj.

While there is some level of agreement among scholars on the existence of a “wall”—whether literal or symbolic—the details about Yajuj and Majuj themselves remain ambiguous.

Researchers often agree on specific elements of the lore but differ on the specifics of who or what Yajuj and Majuj represent.

Alternative Qira’at of Surah Az-Zukhruf 43:61 and Their Interpretations

Certain individuals categorize Syeikh Imran as a non-believer due to this verse: وَإِنَّهُۥ لَعِلْمٌ لِّلسَّاعَةِ, where he reads “‎لَعِلْمٌ” in a different qiraah and claims it to be the true version. Are there any alternative readings (qira’at) of “‎لَعِلْمٌ” in Surah 43, verse 61?

Yes, there is an alternative qira’ah (variant reading) of the word لَعِلْمٌ in Surah Az-Zukhruf, verse 61. The standard Hafs recitation, which is the most widely used qira’ah today, reads it as:

وَإِنَّهُۥ لَعِلْمٌ لِّلسَّاعَةِ“

”And indeed, he (ʿĪsā/Jesus) is a knowledge of the Hour.”

However, some other qira’at have a different reading of the word لَعِلْمٌ, such as:

1. Qirā’ah of Ibnu ʿAbbās, Abu Hurairah, and Mujāhid:

• لَعَلَمٌ لِلسَّاعَةِ

Meaning: “And indeed, he is a sign of the Hour.”
This variation emphasizes Jesus (’Isa عليه السلام) as a clear sign of the Hour instead of “knowledge” of it.

2. Qirā’ah of Some Kufan Reciters (including Al-Kisāʾī and others):

• وَإِنَّهُ لَعَلَمٌ لِّلسَّاعَةِ

Meaning: “And indeed, he is a sign of the Hour.”
This reading aligns with the idea of Jesus being a clear indication or proof of the coming of the Last Hour.

These differences in qira’ah do not change the fundamental meaning of the verse but offer nuanced interpretations. The word لَعِلْمٌ (“knowledge”) and لَعَلَمٌ (“sign, mark”) both indicate that Jesus (’Isa عليه السلام) is connected to the events of the Last Hour, either as a source of knowledge regarding it or as a significant sign of its approach.

Context in Islamic Thought

Some scholars interpret this verse as evidence of the second coming of Jesus (’Isa عليه السلام) before the Day of Judgment.
Others see it as a reference to Jesus’ role in teaching about the Hour during his mission.

Since Qira’at Mutawātirah (mass-transmitted recitations) hold equal legitimacy in Islamic tradition, reading “لَعَلَمٌ” instead of “لَعِلْمٌ” does not make someone a non-believer, as it is a recognized recitation among classical scholars.
If Syeikh Imran is citing this alternative reading, it is within the realm of legitimate qira’at variations that have been preserved in Islamic tradition.

Contents

Home