---

The Prophet Muhammad 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.”

This Hadith highlights Muhammad’s role as the seal of the prophets, symbolizing the completion of divine revelation in Islam.

A thematic parallel is often drawn between this Hadith and Psalm 118, verse 22, which states:

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

While the Psalm is traditionally interpreted in Christian contexts as referring to the Messiah, some Islamic scholars see it as resonating with the idea of prophetic culmination.

From an Islamic perspective, this connection is understood in several ways:

1. Culmination of Monotheism: Both texts symbolize the fulfillment of a divine plan. Islam views all prophets as part of a unified mission of monotheism, with Muhammad completing this message.
2. Rejection and Vindication: The Psalm’s reference to a rejected stone becoming the cornerstone mirrors the Prophet Muhammad’s initial rejection and ultimate acceptance, emphasizing the enduring truth of his message.
3. Interfaith Resonance: Such parallels can serve as a foundation for interfaith dialogue, underscoring shared themes in Abrahamic faiths about divine mission and prophetic legacy.
4. Finality and Perfection: Just as a cornerstone or final brick is crucial to completing a structure, Muhammad’s prophethood is seen as the final piece that perfects the building of divine guidance for humanity.

While acknowledging scriptural differences, the connection between the Hadith and Psalm 118:22 can highlight the continuity and universality of God’s message across traditions—culminating, in Islamic belief, with the mission of Muhammad.

Allah says in the Quran, Surah 2 verse 89:

And when there came to them (Jews) a Book from Allah, confirming that which is with them—and earlier they would pray for victory over the pagans (through the medium of His messenger)—so when there came to them what they recognized (that is, Muhammad), they denied it. So may the curse of Allah be on the faithless!

The verse refers to the Jews who were awaiting the coming of the Messiah, as foretold in their scriptures. They used to pray for his arrival to help them triumph over their enemies. However, when Muhammad came with a message confirming their own scripture, they rejected him out of envy, since he was not from their lineage. This rejection, despite recognizing him, led to Allah’s condemnation.

Some Muslims interpret this verse as indirectly identifying Muhammad as the awaited Messiah, based on the Jews’ prior recognition of his qualities and the Quran’s confirmation of earlier revelations. This interpretation is reinforced by Surah 2, verse 146, which states that the People of the Book knew him as clearly as they knew their own sons.

Unnamed but Honored: The Quran’s Recognition of Hebrew Prophets

Some critics and scholars contend that the Quran omits reference to prominent Hebrew prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the so-called “minor prophets” of the Hebrew Bible. This observation has been a point of theological inquiry and discussion among Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike.

However, a closer look at the Quran—particularly Surah 45, verse 16—reveals a broader and more inclusive view of prophetic tradition that offers a nuanced response to this claim.

Surah 45, verse 16 — A Testament to the Israelite Legacy

The verse in question states:

“And We did certainly give the Children of Israel the Scripture and judgment and prophethood, and We provided them with good things and preferred them over the worlds.”

This verse serves as a general affirmation of the divine gifts bestowed upon the Children of Israel, which includes prophethood. While the Quran does not explicitly name every Hebrew prophet mentioned in the Tanakh (Old Testament), it recognizes that a multitude of prophets were sent to the Israelites, and it honors their legacy as recipients of divine wisdom, scripture, and favor.

An Inclusive View of Prophethood

The Quran mentions around 25 prophets by name, including major figures like Moses, David, Solomon, and others known from the Hebrew Bible. However, it also emphasizes that there were many more messengers sent throughout history whose names are not listed:

“And We have already sent messengers before you. Among them are those [whose stories] We have related to you, and among them are those We have not related to you…”
(Surah 40, verse 78)

This passage reinforces the idea that the Quran does not aim to list all prophets exhaustively, but rather to highlight certain figures for moral and spiritual lessons. Thus, while prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel are not mentioned by name, their existence and roles are not denied. Instead, their contributions are included in the broader recognition of prophetic tradition.

Prophets Without Borders

It is also worth noting that the Quran views all prophets as part of a single continuum of guidance sent by God to various peoples. The emphasis is on the message, not the identity of the messenger:

“Indeed, this, your religion, is one religion, and I am your Lord, so fear Me.”
(Surah 23, verse 52)

This universal view transcends ethnic or historical boundaries, reinforcing the Quran’s message that divine guidance is a shared heritage of humanity, not limited to any single group.

Conclusion

While the Quran may not mention every Hebrew prophet by name, Surah 45, verse 16 affirms their collective legacy by acknowledging the divine gifts—scripture, wisdom, and prophethood—given to the Children of Israel. Through this verse and others, the Quran embraces an inclusive theology that honors the broader prophetic tradition of the Israelites. The absence of certain names is not a denial of their prophethood, but rather a reflection of the Quran’s selective and thematic focus.

In sum, Surah 45, verse 16 stands as a powerful testament to the shared spiritual lineage between Islamic and Hebrew traditions, and offers a respectful response to the theological inquiry regarding the recognition of the Hebrew prophets in the Quran.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

The Abrahamic covenant stands as a foundational pillar in the sacred histories of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Central to this covenant is the rite of circumcision, instituted by God as a binding sign between Himself and Abraham’s descendants.

Traditionally, Jewish and Christian interpretations assert that Isaac, the son born to Abraham and Sarah, is the rightful heir through whom this covenant is fulfilled.

However, a careful reexamination of the biblical chronology challenges this assumption. This article argues that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the first and only son to receive the covenantal sign alongside Abraham himself—prior to Isaac’s birth—thereby establishing Ishmael as the sole and true heir of the original Abrahamic covenant. By exploring the timing, recipients, and implications of circumcision in Genesis 17 and 21, this piece invites readers to reconsider long-held views and appreciate the overlooked centrality of Ishmael in the divine covenant.

1. The Biblical Basis for Circumcision as a Covenant

The Bible establishes circumcision as the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham:

Genesis 17:9–11:

“Then God said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised… it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.’”

Here, circumcision is the definitive sign of the Abrahamic covenant.

2. The Timing of Circumcision Before Isaac’s Birth

The Bible affirms that circumcision was performed before Isaac was born:

Genesis 17:23–26:

“On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him… Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, and his son Ishmael was thirteen.”

At this critical juncture, only Abraham and Ishmael were Abraham’s natural descendants to receive the sign of the covenant. Isaac had not yet been born.

3. Ishmael as the Sole and True Heir of the Abrahamic Covenant

This sequence of events reveals that:
Circumcision is the outward and binding sign of the Abrahamic covenant.
Ishmael was the only son of Abraham present to receive this sign alongside him.
All others circumcised at that time were household members and servants—not Abraham’s direct offspring.
Therefore, Ishmael alone stands as the true and sole heir of the Abrahamic covenant, sharing this foundational covenantal sign with Abraham himself.

4. Isaac as Merely a Participant Like Other Household Members

When Isaac was born, he too was circumcised on the eighth day (Genesis 21:4). However, this circumcision occurred after the covenant was already established through Abraham and Ishmael. Like the other members of Abraham’s household, Isaac simply entered into an existing covenantal practice rather than establishing or uniquely embodying it.

In this understanding:
Isaac’s circumcision parallels that of Abraham’s other household members.
He was brought into the covenantal sign but did not share in the original covenantal enactment alongside Abraham.
Thus, Isaac is seen merely as a participant in the Abrahamic covenant, not as its unique heir.

5. Distinction from the Sinai Covenant

The Sinai covenant was revealed exclusively to the descendants of Isaac through Jacob (Israel), establishing a separate covenantal framework for the Israelites.

In contrast, the original Abrahamic covenant—established through circumcision before Isaac’s birth—finds its complete and exclusive fulfillment in Ishmael, who was the first to embody and share this sign with Abraham.

6. Challenging Traditional Jewish and Christian Views

Traditionally, Jewish and Christian interpretations place Isaac as the sole heir of the Abrahamic covenant. However, this argument radically reorients that view:
Ishmael alone shares the covenantal enactment with Abraham.
Isaac, like the other household members, enters a covenantal practice already established.
Therefore, Ishmael alone emerges as the true and rightful heir of the Abrahamic covenant.

Summary of the Articulation

Circumcision, the outward sign of the Abrahamic covenant, was first performed on Abraham and Ishmael before Isaac was born. This historical reality establishes that while Isaac and others in Abraham’s household were participants in the sign of the covenant, only Ishmael shared in the covenant’s original establishment and thus stands as its true and exclusive heir. In this perspective, Ishmael’s role transcends mere participation—he alone embodies the Abrahamic covenant in its full and foundational form.

Hajj as the Fulfillment of Abrahamic Prophecy

Torah, Genesis 22 verse 18, reads:

“And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.”

It is believed the event of the Hajj in Mecca is the fulfillment of the biblical prophecy of Genesis 22 verse 18. According to the Islamic belief, Abraham offered Ishmael, not Isaac, as a sacrifice to God, emphasizing Ishmael’s role in fulfilling God’s covenant with Abraham. The event of Hajj proves that God made a covenant with Abraham through Hagar and Ishmael rather than Sarah and Isaac. How is this viewpoint presented?

The viewpoint that the Hajj in Mecca is a fulfillment of the biblical prophecy of Genesis 22 verse 18, and represents a covenant made by God with Abraham through Hagar and Ishmael, rather than Sarah and Isaac, is articulated based on several key aspects of Islamic belief and interpretation of religious texts:

1. Prophecy of Genesis 22 verse 18: The verse in Genesis states:

“And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.”

Some interpret this as a prophecy that is fulfilled through the descendants of Ishmael, Abraham’s son with Hagar. The Islamic narrative holds that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was offered by Abraham as a sacrifice to God. This signifies Ishmael’s importance in the fulfillment of God’s covenant with Abraham. The Hajj, as a major Islamic ritual commemorating the actions of Abraham and Ishmael, is seen as a manifestation of this blessing.

2. The Hajj and Ishmael’s Legacy: In Islamic tradition, the Hajj includes rituals that are believed to commemorate the life and trials of Abraham and his son Ishmael. The ritual of Sa’i, where pilgrims travel back and forth between the hills of Safa and Marwah, is seen as a re-enactment of Hagar’s desperate search for water for her infant son Ishmael. According to Islamic belief, the well of Zamzam originated to rescue baby Ishmael.

3. The Kaaba and Islamic Tradition: The Kaaba in Mecca, which is the focal point of the Hajj, is believed in Islamic tradition to have been built by Abraham and Ishmael as a house of worship to the one true God. This act of establishing monotheism in the region is viewed as a key part of fulfilling God’s covenant with Abraham.

4. Universal Blessing and Unity of Humankind: The Hajj is seen as a fulfillment of God’s promise to bless all nations through Abraham’s descendants. The gathering of millions of Muslims from diverse nations during Hajj is viewed as a symbol of this blessing and the unity of humankind under God’s guidance.

5. Continuity of Abrahamic Tradition: The Hajj is also seen as a continuation and fulfillment of the Abrahamic tradition of monotheism. This perspective posits that Islam, as the final revelation in the Abrahamic tradition, fulfills and perfects earlier revelations given to Jews and Christians.

This viewpoint is part of the broader Islamic interpretation of religious history, which sees Islam as both a continuation and a completion of the monotheistic tradition established by Abraham.

Interpolation in the Torah from an Islamic viewpoint

Here is how the Jewish scribe manipulated Ishmael’s story:

1. The age of Ishmael at the time of his departure from Abraham’s house.
2. Abraham’s son, who was offered as a sacrifice.

Some Islamic scholars suspect that the scribes tampered with the story of Hagar and Ishmael in the Torah. It is argued that Genesis 21, verses 9 to 10, may have been added later because Ishmael and Hagar had already left Abraham’s house long before Isaac was born, with Ishmael being an infant according to Islamic tradition.

Similarly, some question whether Genesis 22, verse 2, could refer to Ishmael, since Isaac had never been Abraham’s only son, whereas Ishmael had been for fourteen years before Isaac was born. How is this Islamic viewpoint presented?

The Islamic perspective on the stories of Hagar, Ishmael, and Isaac, as presented in the Torah, differs significantly from the Jewish and Christian narratives. These differences have led some Islamic scholars to question the authenticity of certain Biblical passages, suggesting possible later additions or alterations.

In the Islamic tradition, Hagar and Ishmael’s story is seen through a different lens compared to the Biblical account. According to Islamic belief, Ishmael was an infant when he and his mother Hagar were left in the desert, which contrasts with the Biblical narrative where Ishmael is depicted as a young boy during this event. Some Islamic scholars argue that certain verses in Genesis, such as Genesis 21:9-10, might have been added later, as they imply that Ishmael was older and capable of mocking Isaac, which would not align with the Islamic timeline where Ishmael had already left before Isaac’s birth.

The question of who was the intended son of sacrifice is another point of divergence. In the Quran, it is generally believed that Ishmael was the son whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice, whereas the Bible identifies Isaac as the intended sacrifice. This discrepancy has led some Islamic scholars to suggest that Genesis 22, verse 2, which refers to Isaac as Abraham’s “only son,” might be inaccurate, as Ishmael was Abraham’s firstborn and was his only son for fourteen years before Isaac’s birth. The argument is that the description of Isaac as the “only son” could have been a later addition to emphasize Isaac’s significance in the Jewish tradition.

Islamic narratives emphasize the significance of Ishmael and his descendants, linking them to the lineage of the Prophet Muhammad. The Islamic tradition holds that Abraham and Ishmael together built the Kaaba in Mecca, a central element in Islamic faith, which is not mentioned in the Bible. The Quran and Islamic teachings often highlight the spiritual and prophetic roles of both Ishmael and Isaac, but with a focus on Ishmael’s role in the lineage leading to Islam.

Conclusion

The Islamic viewpoint on the story of Hagar and Ishmael in the Torah is characterized by skepticism towards the authenticity of certain verses. Islamic scholars argue that the timeline and events described in the Torah may have been altered, and that Ishmael may have been the son referred to in Genesis 22:2 instead of Isaac.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

The Jewish Encyclopedia (published 1901–1906) does indeed discuss the connection between the peoples of Gog and Magog and the Khazars, reflecting both medieval Jewish traditions and interpretations circulating at the time.

Key Points from the Jewish Encyclopedia

1. Biblical and Apocalyptic Origins: Gog and Magog are originally biblical figures and nations mentioned in Ezekiel (chapters 38–39) and later in apocalyptic literature. They are depicted as nations from the far north who will attack Israel in the end times.

2. Medieval Jewish Tradition: In the Middle Ages, Jewish writers and travelers often tried to identify Gog and Magog with actual peoples or nations known to them.
The Jewish Encyclopedia notes that, according to some Jewish traditions, the “barbarous nations” of the far north, particularly those beyond the Caucasus, were associated with Gog and Magog.

3. Connection to the Khazars:

The Jewish Encyclopedia specifically mentions that in some medieval Jewish sources, the Khazars—a Turkic people who established a powerful kingdom north of the Caucasus and whose ruling class converted to Judaism—were identified with the peoples of Gog and Magog.

This identification is found in the writings of Jewish travelers such as Petachiah of Regensburg and Benjamin of Tudela, who described the Khazar lands as being those of Gog and Magog.

The Encyclopedia states:

“The name [Gog and Magog] was applied to the wild peoples of the north, especially the Khazars, by the Jews of the Middle Ages…”

4. Legends and Folklore: The association was partly based on the legend that Alexander the Great had built a wall to confine the uncivilized peoples of Gog and Magog, and that the Khazars were believed to live beyond this barrier.

Summary

The Jewish Encyclopedia records that, in medieval Jewish tradition and folklore, the Khazars were sometimes identified with the apocalyptic peoples of Gog and Magog—nations expected to play a role in the events preceding the Messianic era. This connection was not based on historical or biblical evidence but rather on the geographical imagination and apocalyptic expectations of the time.

Do Gog and its allies embrace Judaism?

The interpretation you are referring to suggests that Gog, the mentioned invader in the Book of Ezekiel, represents a nation that converted to Judaism and subsequently develops an obsession with the Holy Land and Jerusalem.

It is important to note that this interpretation is not universally accepted and represents a specific perspective among certain individuals or groups.

Those who hold this viewpoint often base their argument on various passages from the Old Testament, particularly Ezekiel 38-39. They claim that Gog and its allies, portrayed as invading forces, could symbolize a nation that is intimately connected to or influenced by Judaism.

Supporters of this interpretation suggest that the nation’s conversion to Judaism might influence its territorial ambitions, particularly towards the Holy Land and Jerusalem. They argue that this conversion leads to a deep attachment to the land and a desire to possess it for religious or messianic reasons.

However, it is crucial to acknowledge that this specific interpretation is speculative and there are alternative explanations for the meaning and identity of Gog presented in various schools of thought. Different religious traditions and scholars may offer diverging perspectives on the subject matter.

As with any interpretive claim, it is essential to critically evaluate the evidence and consider a range of viewpoints to gain a comprehensive understanding of different perspectives on the topic.

Prophetic Parallels: The Role of Gog and Magog in Islam and Judaism and Their Implications

In the Quran, Allah provides a prophecy concerning Gog and Magog, identifying them and their allies as adversaries of Allah and the Muslims, particularly those residing in the Holy Land, the site of Muhammad’s Night Journey.

Given that the prophecy of Gog and Magog also appears in Jewish scripture, what message does this convey to the Jewish community?

The prophecy of Gog and Magog appears in both Islamic and Jewish scripture, and the message it conveys is significant to both communities. In the Jewish tradition, the prophecy is found in the Hebrew Bible, particularly in the Book of Ezekiel. It describes a great apocalyptic battle involving Gog of the land of Magog, a powerful and hostile force that will invade the Holy Land.

The message of the Quran to the Jews who also have the prophecy of Gog and Magog in their scripture is that they should believe in Allah and His Messenger Muhammad, and follow the guidance of Islam, which is the final and complete revelation from Allah.
The Quran warns the Jews that they will face a severe punishment from Allah if they persist in their disbelief and corruption, and that they will be among the allies of Gog and Magog, who are the enemies of Allah and His righteous servants.
The Quran also informs the Muslims that they will be victorious over Gog and Magog, with the help of Allah, and that they will inherit the Holy Land after the destruction of Gog and Magog.

Download: The Matrix of Gog.pdf

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

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.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

The statement that “the idea of immutability is at odds with the Christian understanding of God in relation to the Trinity” highlights a profound theological tension.

Let’s explore how this idea interacts with the scriptures of the Tanakh and the New Testament, as well as how it resonates with the Arian perspective.

1. The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible)

In the Hebrew Scriptures, God’s immutability—His unchanging nature—is a foundational attribute. Verses such as Malachi 3:6 (“For I the LORD do not change”) and Numbers 23:19 (“God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind”) affirm this stability and eternal constancy. God’s steadfastness is a source of assurance for Israel, emphasizing His faithfulness to His covenantal promises.

The concept of immutability in the Tanakh does not anticipate the idea of God taking on human form or existing in multiple hypostases. Rather, God is portrayed as utterly transcendent and singular in His essence. Consequently, there is no tension within the Tanakh between immutability and any triune nature.

2. The New Testament

In the New Testament, the emergence of Christological doctrines introduces complexity. Jesus is described as the incarnate Word who shares in the divine essence, yet He experiences birth, growth, suffering, and death. These aspects of change—birth, growth, suffering, and death—appear to challenge the absolute immutability of God.

Nevertheless, the Epistle of James reaffirms the unchanging nature of God: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (James 1:17). This verse highlights the constancy of God’s character, reinforcing the Hebrew Bible’s teaching of divine immutability.

However, the development of the Trinity doctrine complicates this understanding. The human experiences of Jesus—His birth, life, and death—appear to introduce change within the second person of the Trinity, presenting a challenge to the classical notion of God’s unchanging nature.

3. Arian Perspective

Arius, a 4th-century presbyter, rejected the co-equality and consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. Arians asserted that the Son was a created being, distinct and subordinate to the immutable Father. In this view, immutability belongs solely to the Father; the Son, as a created intermediary, is capable of change and thus not truly immutable.

For Arians, the doctrine of the Trinity (as defined by Nicene orthodoxy) appeared incompatible with immutability, because it required that the Son—who was subject to birth, suffering, and death—be fully God. They argued that this compromised the changelessness of the divine essence. The Arian position thus reinforced the idea that the Trinity undermines the classical attribute of divine immutability.

The tension between divine immutability and the Trinity emerges uniquely within Christianity. While the Tanakh affirms God’s unchanging nature without invoking a triune framework, the New Testament presents a divine figure who enters time and history in the person of Jesus Christ. For Arians, this was unacceptable: true divinity, they argued, could neither suffer nor change.

The Arian controversy underscores the vital importance of upholding the scriptural affirmations of God’s constancy and absolute immutability. The radical claim that God Himself took on flesh is, from the Arian perspective, an untenable departure from these scriptural truths.

For Arians, Jesus remains distinct from the eternal and unchangeable God. The immutable Father does not enter into history or undergo change, but rather sends Jesus as the mediator between Himself and creation.

This conviction continues to resonate in theological discourse today, reminding believers to uphold the absolute transcendence and immutability of God the Father, who—unlike any creature or mediator—remains forever unchanged.

Who were the Unitarian scholars among Christians prior to the establishment of the Nicene Creed?

Prior to the formulation of the Nicene Creed in 325 CE, certain Christian scholars and theologians expressed Unitarian beliefs, focusing on the singularity of God and rejecting the doctrines of the Trinity. These figures typically aligned with early theological traditions that emphasized the Father as the sole God. Some of these individuals include:

1. Theodotus of Byzantium (late 2nd century):

Theodotus taught that Jesus was a man who was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism (“Adoptionism”). He rejected the idea of Jesus being divine by nature, affirming the singularity of God, and was excommunicated for his views.

2. Paul of Samosata (3rd century):

Paul, a bishop of Antioch, was a key figure in early Christian Monarchianism, emphasizing the unity of God. He taught that Jesus was a man endowed with divine wisdom and power but not preexistent or divine in nature. His views were condemned at the Synod of Antioch (268 CE).

3. Artemon (2nd–3rd century):

Artemon is associated with a form of Monarchianism, maintaining that early Christian doctrine affirmed that Jesus was merely human and not divine. He argued that the belief in Christ’s divinity was a later development.

4. Ebionites (1st–4th centuries):

The Ebionites were an early Jewish-Christian group that rejected the divinity of Jesus and the preexistence doctrine. They viewed Jesus as a prophet and the Messiah but emphasized the absolute unity of God.

5. Photinus of Sirmium:

Photinus was a 4th-century bishop who rejected the Trinity, viewing God as a singular entity rather than three distinct persons. His beliefs conflicted with orthodox Christian teachings, particularly the Nicene Creed established in 325 AD, which affirmed the Trinitarian view. Photinus emphasized God’s unity but was eventually condemned as a heretic by the Church for opposing the established doctrine.

6. Origen (184–253 CE):

Although Origen is often considered a precursor to later Trinitarian thought, he also emphasized the subordination of the Son to the Father. His theological framework left room for interpretations that leaned toward a Unitarian understanding of the supremacy of the Father.

7. Arianism and Arius (c. 250–336 CE):

Arius, though post-Nicene, was active before the council and denied the co-eternity and consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. He argued that the Son was created by the Father and therefore subordinate, aligning with a Unitarian emphasis on God’s singularity.

8. Early Jewish Christians:

Many early Jewish Christians, including those in the Nazarean and Ebionite communities, maintained strict monotheism. They rejected the idea of Jesus’ divinity and upheld the belief in God as a singular being.

These figures and groups represent diverse streams of early Christian thought that diverged from the later Trinitarian orthodoxy solidified at the Council of Nicaea. Their beliefs highlight the rich and contested theological debates of early Christianity.

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.

Search

Search

---

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.

Search

Search

---

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.

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.

Search

Search

---

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

Search

Search

---

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.

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.

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.

Search

Search

---

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.

Search

Search