Surah 9:29 – Tabuk | Response To ‘Religion Of Peace’

Posted onSeptember 14, 2021February 10, 2025AuthorMohamad Mostafa Nassar

𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐡 𝟗:𝟐𝟗 – 𝐓𝐚𝐛𝐮𝐤 | 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐨 ‘𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐎𝐟 𝐏𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞’

Mohamad Mostafa Nassar
Twitter:@NassarMohamadMR

𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝟏𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭: 𝐐𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝟗:𝟐𝟗: 𝐅𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐃𝐚𝐲

The site Religion Of Peace (TROP), the founder is Glen Roberts – this notorious Christian missionary has written an article in response to our piece on Quran 9:29 which can be see here: “Answering Jihad: ‘Fight Against Those Who Do Not Believe’ – Quran 9:29”

This missionary has been publishing anti-Muslim and Islam articles for many years pretending to be an “expert” on Islam. In reality he has no expertise in any field let alone when it comes to Islam. He is a fraud masquerading as an “expert”. The supposed article he wrote in response to ours – he made a lot of claims without evidence. Usually when a person does a rebuttal to another person, one would attach a URL link for people to read what the author is actually rebutting in order for readers to make their own conclusions. In an unusual turn Glen Roberts did not link our article for his viewers to read.

This article is in response to some of the claims he made. We will link Glen Roberts’ piece in reference section, so people can compare what we have written to his and make their own conclusions up on this matter. [1]

Glen Roberts begins by claiming that nowhere in the Quran is there any hint that the verse is referred to the Byzantine’s. He then goes on to say that the verse commanded early believers to fight people based on their belief alone as result of them following the Christian or Jewish faith. Then he makes the mistake as other missionaries do usually and writes:

“This is extremely important because the Quran is claimed by Muslims to be perfect and complete. Why would Allah neglect to mention an opposing army if it is critical to interpreting the passage? What’s worse is that instead of laying out the case for self-defense, Allah explicitly curses Jews and Christians in the next verse (9:30).”

There are a number of issues with this approach. The Christian missionary makes the same mistake as his other friends by saying the Quran is complete then there is no need for other outside Prophetic Statements . The Quran is indeed complete. His misunderstanding, the verse of the Quran he refers to indirectly is in regards to Laws in the Quran. The Laws laid out in the Quran are very clear.

This is how scholars have understood the verse he inferred. It has nothing to do with the verse we are speaking about. The Quran speaks about prayer and other ritualistic matters, but we don’t know how to carry them out in our day to day lives unless we approach the Hadith, the Prophetic statements on this.

Furthermore, Glen Roberts cherry picks what we can believe in and what we can’t. You do not have the authority to dictate what Muslims have believed in for 1400 years, and all of sudden claim that those outside sources of the Quran shouldn’t be relied on when it conveniently goes against your article.

The very same Quran tells us that the Prophet Muhammed (p) came to explain, elucidate and these are recorded in the Hadith:

“with manifest signs and with scriptures; and we have sent down the Reminder to thee too, that thou mayest EXPLAIN to men what has been sent down to them, and haply they may reflect.” – Quran 16:44 (Edward Henry Palmer Translation)

As for the claim to connect Surah 9:29 and verse 30 together, these two have no connections whatsoever. Let us explain: you should be aware that just because straight after 9:29 comes the cursing of a group of people who exalted Ezra that does not mean that the verses were revealed on the same occasion. For example, Surah 9:1 all the way to verse 24 was revealed in connection with the Quraysh polytheists, which was revealed over a year before surah 9:29 was revealed.

The discussion surrounding 9:29 and 9:30 refer to two completely different groups. While 9:29 was revealed on the occasion of Tabuk, that is in relation to Byzantine as one of the earliest scholar’s of Islam who met Muhammed’s companions report’s this to us.

He very clearly states that this verse was revealed in relation to Tabuk, the Byzantine’s. Whereas S. 9:30 as the companions of Muhammed have said, the latter verse refers to a group of People who called Ezra the son of God in Madinah. Ibn Abbas (619 – 687 CE) the Prophet Muhammed’s companion states the following in relation to 9:30,

“Ibn Abbas states: Sallam b. Mishkam, Nu’man b. Abi awfa, shas b. Qays, and Malik al-sayf [Jews] came to the Prophet Muhammad (p) and said: ‘How can we follow you if you renounce that which came before you. You do not think that Ezra is the son of God?’ So Allah revealed to him the verse.” (Tafsir al-Baghawi, (4/36), online source, http://islamport.com/l/tfs/799/1238.htm )

Now compare the above with Mujahid Ibn Jabr (645 – 722 CE) who met the companions of Prophet Muhammed, he states in his exegesis for 9:29 that the verse was revealed in connection to the Byzantine’s. The Tabuk expedition more specifically:

“Mujahid Said: ‘This was when Muhammad (p) ordered his companions for Ghazwah Tabook.’
حين أمر محمدٌ وأصحابه بغزوة تبوك (Tafsir al-Tabari, on Surah 9:29, online source, http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/tafseer/tabary/sura9-aya29.html )

Many other classical scholars have said that Surah 9:29 was revealed in connection with Tabuk. Their names are, Hud b. Muhakkam Huwwariyy (9th century) [2], al-Tabari (838 – 923 CE) [3], Baghawi (1044 – 1122 AD), Ibn Kathir (1301 – 1373 AD), Al-Zurqani (1645 – 1710 CE).

When we look at the two verses in a historical perspective readers would be aware that the two verses have no connection to each other when they were revealed. Each verse dealt with separate incident’s on two different occasions. Missionaries like Glen and others make frequent mistakes in matters of the Quran, this is as a result of them never studying Islam in basic level or in University.

This is one of the reasons why scholars dedicate years to study and learn the science of revelation i.e., occasions or circumstances of revelation (Asbab al-Nuzul). The Quran is not like any other scripture. Many verses were revealed on different occasions and therefore it is important to know when and why each verse was revealed. Without extensive studies of this field one will make mistakes and make up claims that is in not line with historical understanding of the verse(s).

As for the claim:

“The most obvious problem with this argument is that verse 9:29 bluntly says to fight Jews and Christians on the basis of their religious belief. … The enemy is defined simply as those who “believe not in Allah” nor acknowledge the superiority of Islam.”

Scholar Zakaria Bashier (b. 1940), who obtained his BA and M.litt. in Philosophy from the Universities of Khartoum, Sudan and Durham, UK respectively, and his PhD on Islamic Philosophy from the University of Pittsburgh, USA, he has written an interesting and in-depth piece on the Arabic words used for Surah 9:29 alone.

He states that the fact that they were called “Christians” and “Jews” and

(1) did not believe in God (atheists),

(2) they do not believe in the day of Judgement and

(3) non-practicing – based on the Arabic words used he concludes that the verse cannot refer to all Christians and Jews in Arabia, because the Quran unequivocally states elsewhere that there are Christians who are believers in God and the Last Day.

The scholar concludes and says based on the Arabic words used in the verse, that it refers to a specific group only, not all Christians and Jews. For a detailed analysis on the words, please see the following article by Scholar Zakaria Bashier: “Revisiting Quran 9:29 – Tabuk”

Roberts then makes a more outlandish and deceptive claim:

“Given that there is no textual context for self-defense in Sura 9, the next problem for apologists is that the historical record is not terribly cooperative either, even from Muslim sources. In the first place, there is no independent confirmation that there was ever a military advance at Tabuk on Muhammad’s tribe. In other words, there is not a shred of historical evidence that a Byzantine army had been assembled at that time, much less that it was attacking Muslims.”

You asserted that there is no independent outside non-Muslim sources on Tabuk and surrounding events. You may be right here. You should remember that as a Christian you don’t have one shred of independent evidence to corroborate that Jesus existed outside the New Testament. Have you got a source which says Jesus existed and did the things described in the New Testament by any contemporary person that lived at the time Jesus was alive?

You don’t. You base your beliefs of Jesus on sources from within Christianity. Same goes with Islam, we base our evidence on our sources which have been accepted and authentic in Islam for over a 1000 years.

If you’re going with this line of thinking, then be consistent with your approach and accept also that there is no independent contemporary evidence that Jesus existed outside of the New Testament. Thus, you should reject your Christian beliefs because as per your logic, there is no “independent” source outside your NT. You won’t do that. So all we are asking of you is at least use the same measurement of approach to our scripture as you do to your own. Don’t be one-sided and biased.

You then moved on and claimed that there is no historical evidence, not even from Muslim sources of an impending army. Did you skip the number of early reports we cited in the article which clearly state that the Byzantine’s were trying to attack the Muslim community?

Or did you wilfully make this claim up in order to deliberately mislead your readers not to see those facts presented? Is this why you didn’t provide a direct link to our article for your readers to read?

Let’s present some of the earliest sources on the Byzantine army’s attempt to attack the Muslim community. The following report from Sahih Muslim and other sources tell us that Byzantine army had already been encamped at Tabuk. The Hadith clearly mentions that the Prophet and the Muslims had to “confront a large army” of the Byzantine’s:

“…this is my story of remaining back from Allah’s Messenger on the occasion of the Battle of TABUK. Never did I possess means enough and (my circumstances) more favourable than at the occasion of this expedition.

And, by Allah, I had never before this expedition simultaneously in my possession two rides. Allah’s Messenger set out for this expedition in extremely hot season; the journey was long and the land (which he and his army had to cover) was waterless and HE HAD TO CONFRONT A LARGE ARMY,

so he informed the Muslims about the actual situation (they had to face), so that they should adequately equip themselves for this expedition, and he also told them the destination where he intended to go. …” (Sahih Muslim Book 37, Hadith 6670)

Riyad as-Salihin:

“…this is the account of my staying behind from the battle of TABUK. I never had better means and more favourable circumstances than at the time of this expedition. And by Allah, I had never before possessed two riding-camels as I did during the time of this expedition. Whenever Messenger of Allah decided to go on a campaign, he would not disclose his real destination till the last moment (of departure).

But on this expedition, he set out in extremely hot weather; the journey was long and the terrain was waterless desert; and HE HAD TO FACE A STRONG ARMY, so he informed the Muslims about the actual position so that they should make full preparation for the campaign.” (Riyad as-Salihin Book 1, Hadith 21)

Mishkat Al-Masabih:

“To Tabuk. God’s messenger undertook it in extreme heat, facing a long journey, desert country and A NUMEROUS ENEMY. He made clear to the Muslims what they were about to do in order that they might get ready the equipment for their expedition, telling them where he was going.”

(Mishkat Al-Masabih – English Translation With Explanatory Notes [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Publishers, Lahore, Pakistan., 1991] by James Robson, D. Litt., D.D. (Emeritus Professor Of Arabic, The University of Manchester), volume II (Vol. 2), page 836 (Chapter V))

One of the earliest sources on the Tabuk expedition is by Ibn Sa’d (784-845 CE), in his Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir he furnishes us with much detail surrounding this event. He states that reports had reached Prophet Muhammed (p) that the Byzantine (Romans) had “concentrated large forces” and Heracluis had sent some his military to ‘Balqa’. This is when the Muhammed (p) “summoned” his companions to Tabuk:

“They (narrators) saud: It (report) reached the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, that the ROMANS HAD CONCENTRATED LARGE FORCES IN SYRIA had, that Heraclius had disbursed one year’s salary to his soldiers, and that tribes of Lakhm, Judham, ‘Amilah and Ghassan had joined hands with him. THEY SENT HAD SENT THEIR VANGUARDS TO AL-BALQA. THE MESSENGER of Allah, SUMMONED THE PEOPLE TO MARCH.

He set out and informed them about the place which he intended, so that they could make necessary preparations. He sent (messengers) to Makkah and to the tribes of Arabia (asking them) to send help. This took place in the days of intense heat.” (Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, [Translated by S. Moinul Haq (New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2009)], by Ibn Sa’d, volume 2, page 203-204)

This is also reported by the 9th Century historian Aḥmad Ibn Yaḥya al-Baladhuri (D. 892 CE), in his book ‘Kitab Futuh Al-Buldan’, he states in clear words that the Prophet (p) learned that the Byzantine army “had assembled against him”:

“Tabuk make terms. When in the year 9 AH the Prophet marched to TABUK in Syria for the invasion of those of the Greeks, Amilah, Lakhm, Judham and others WHOM HE LEARNT HAD ASSEMBLED AGAINST HIM, he met no resistance. So he spent a few days in Tabuk, whose inhabitants made terms with him agreeing to pay poll-tax.”

(The origins of the Islamic State, being a translation from the Arabic accompanied with annotations Geographic and historic notes of the Kitab Futuh Al-Buldan of al-Imam Abu’l Abbas Ahmad Ibn Jabir Al Baladhuri, [Translated by Phillip Khurti Hitti, PHD, 1916], volume 1, page 92)

In the version that is narrated by Mu’jam Tabarani (873 – 918 CE), he states that Christians said it is a “appropriate time to attack the Arabs” (Muslims):

“The Battle Of Tabuk

Rajab 9 A. H.
On the authority of Imran Ibn Husayn that the Christian Arabs wrote to Hercules, the King Of Rome that Muhammad passed away and that the people were dying because of the drought that they were experiencing. It was therefore a very appropriate TIME TO ATTACK THE ARABS (MUSLIMS).

immediately issued the order for preparations. A fully equipped army of 40 000 was prepared.” (Mu’jam az-Zawa’id, volume 6, page 191) (Siratul Mustafa [Translated by Maulana Mahomed Mahomedy – Madrasah Arabia Islamia and Zam Zam Publishers – Fifth Authorized Edition, 2015] by Hadrat Maulana Idris Sahib Kandehlawi, volume 3, page 96)

Muhammad al-Zurqani (1645 – 1710 CE) also reports the above accounts:

“It is related that the Prophet (p) received reports of the Byzantine military crossing on the northern frontiers of Arabia with the intend of MOUNTING AN ATTACK ON THE MUSLIMS. The Prophet was informed by some Nabataeans and others that Heraclius was stocking one year’s provisions for his army and drafting the pro-Byzantine tribes of Lakhm, Judham, Amla and GHASSAN under his banner, INTENDING TO COME UPON HIM and that his advance columns had already reached Balqa.” (A Commentary On Al-Mawahib, by Muhammad al-Zurqani, volume 3, page 63 – 64)

It should be noted also that the Pro-Byzantine Ghassasnide (Ghassan) tribe which Ibn Sa’d and Zurqani already mentioned [4], few months before Tabuk expedition were attempting to attack the Muslim community. But the Muslims did not initiate any fighting. The Muslims only took action when the reports were confirmed as shown in the above accounts in relation to Tabuk expedition.

These are the sources that mention that Pro-Byzantine Ghassan tribe intended to attack. Sahih al-Bukhari reports:

“… I left her (and went home). At that time I had a friend from the Ansar who used to bring news (from the Prophet) in case of my absence, and I used to bring him the news if he was absent. In those days we were afraid of one of the kings of GHASSANID TRIBE. We heard that he INTENDED TO MOVE AND ATTACK US, so fear filled our hearts because of that. (One day) my Ansari friend unexpectedly knocked at my door, and said, “Open Open!’ I said, ‘Has the king of Ghassan come?’ He said, ‘No, but something worse; God’s Messenger has isolated himself from his wives.’ …” (Sahih al-Bukhari volume 6, Book 60, Hadith 435. Eng. Tran., https://sunnah.com/urn/45900 )

Sahih Muslim:

“I had a friend from the Ansar. When I had been absent (from the company of the Prophet) he used to bring me the news and when he had been absent I used to bring him the news, and at that time we dreaded a KING OF GHASSAN. It was mentioned to us that he INTENDED TO ATTACK US, AND OUR MINDS WERE HAUNTED BY HIM. My friend, the Ansari, came to me, and he knocked at the door and said:

Open it, open it. I said: Has the Ghassanid come? He said: (The matter is) more serious than that. The Messenger of Allah has separated himself from his wives. …” (Sahih Muslim Book 9, Hadith 3508. Eng Tran., https://sunnah.com/muslim/18/41 )

Jami at-Tirmidhi:

“‘My house was in Al-Awali among those of Banu Umayya, and I had a neighbour among the Ansar, and he and I would take turns visiting the Messenger of God.’ He said: ‘One day I would visit him and bring the news of the Revelation, and one day he would visit him and bring the same. We heard that GHASSAN WERE PREPARING THEIR HORSES TO ATTACK US. He said: ‘

One day he came to me in the evening and knocked on my door, so I went out to him. He said: “A horrible thing has happened.” I said: “Ghassan has come?” He said: “Worse than that. The Messenger of God has divorced his wives.’ … “(Jami at-Tirmidhi volume 5, Book 44, Hadith 3318. Eng. Tran., Sahih Darussalam, https://sunnah.com/urn/680290)

Roberts also claims that the expedition was set out based on “rumours” and not factual evidence, then why did the Muslims few months before Tabuk expedition not set out against the pro-Byzantine the Ghassan tribe when the Muslims heard that they were advancing against them but the Muslims did not do anything but stayed, as shown in the above Hadith reports? For more information on the Ghassan incident see the following article please: “Byzantine’s, Tabuk Expedition And The Rumor Claim”

The fact of the matter is the Muslims only advanced months later when there was clear evidence of Byzantne’s impending army. Readers should also be aware that a year before this event the Ghasanide’s assassinated an envoy, a Messenger of Muhammed which led to the battle of Mut’ah: “The Battle Of Mu’tah (Mutah)”

So far, based on the earliest sources of Islam, we get a clear picture that the Byzantine’s did indeed concentrate large forces in order to overthrow and murder innocent Muslims.

Then author moves away this time claiming that what we used are “weak” sources:

“Even the more questionable sources do not say that there was a real army at Tabuk, just a possible rumor that one was being put together. [Apologists such as “Discover the Truth” routinely interchange reliable and weaker sources to make it appear that Muslims at Medina were in imminent danger at the time.”

Roberts, you claimed that we used weak sources, could you show us what exactly is weak? It should be noted to our respected readers that the critic did not present a single evidence to back his outlandish assertion that we used “weak sources”. A simple Google search would inform readers that Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari, Riyad as-Salihin and other sources we quoted are some of the most authentic sources of Islam.

Glen Roberts then claims that we quoted events that occurred “after Tabuk”:

“They also alter the wording from the original verse and introduce events that occurred after Tabuk as if they preceded it].”

Here he infers on some of the earliest reports from classical scholars who say that Abu Amir along with Byzantine leader prepared to assassinate Prophet Muhammed and murder Muslims. He deceptively claims that this event occurred after Tabuk. The event you misrepresented and inferred to did not happen after Tabuk.

In fact the very sources you claim to have read clearly state that this happened just before the Prophet set out to Tabuk expedition. The sources mention that the Byzantine leader along with Abu Amir attempted to murder the Prophet. The very sources you deliberately misrepresented and not show your readers mention this fact.

The 14th-century respected scholar Abu l-Fidaʾ Ismail Ibn Umar Ibn Kathir (1301-1373 CE), mentions that Abu Amir got the backing of Heraclius to launch an attack on the Muslim community, notice he states “Before Tabuk”:

“Masjid Ad-Dirar and Masjid At-Taqwa
The reason behind revealing these honorable Ayat is that before the Messenger of Allah migrated to Al-Madinah, there was a man from Al-Khazraj called “Abu `Amir Ar-Rahib (the Monk).” This man embraced Christianity before Islam and read the Scriptures. During the time of Jahiliyyah, Abu Amir was known for being a worshipper and being a notable person among Al-Khazraj.

When the Messenger of Allah arrived at Al-Madinah after the Hijrah, the Muslims gathered around him and the word of Islam was triumphant on the day of Badr, causing Abu `Amir, the cursed one, to choke on his own saliva and announce his enmity to Islam. He fled from Al-Madinah to the idolators of Quraysh in Makkah to support them in the WAR AGAINST THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH.

The Quraysh united their forces and the bedouins who joined them for the battle of Uhud, during which Allah tested the Muslims, but the good end is always for the pious and righteous people. The rebellious Abu Amir dug many holes in the ground between the two camps, into one of which the Messenger fell, injuring his face and breaking one of his right lower teeth.

He also sustained a head injury. Before the fighting started, Abu Amir approached his people among the Ansar and tried to convince them to support and agree with him. When they recognized him, they said, “May Allah never burden an eye by seeing you, O Fasiq one, O enemy of Allah!” They cursed him and he went back declaring, “By Allah! Evil has touched my people after I left.”

The Messenger of Allah called Abu Amir to Allah and recited the Qur’an to him before his flight to Makkah, but he refused to embrace Islam and REBELLED. The Messenger invoked Allah that Abu Amir die as an outcast in an alien land, and his invocation came true.

After the battle of Uhud was finished, ABU AMIR realized that the Messenger’s call was still rising and gaining momentum, so HE WENT TO HERACLIUS, THE EMPEROR OF ROME, ASKING FOR HIS AID AGAINST THE PROPHET. HERACLIUS GAVE HIM PROMISES AND ABU AMIR REMAINED WITH HIM. He also wrote to several of his people in Al-Madinah, who embraced hypocrisy, promising and insinuating to them THAT HE WILL LEAD AN ARMY TO FIGHT THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH TO DEFEAT HIM AND HIS CALL.

He ordered them to establish a stronghold where he could send his emissaries and to serve as an outpost when he joins them later on. These hypocrites built a Masjid next to the Masjid in Quba’, and they finished building it BEFORE the Messenger went to TABUK. They went to the Messenger inviting him to pray in their Masjid so that it would be a proof that the Messenger approved of their Masjid.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, last accessed 27th February 2017, http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1590&Itemid=64 )

The plan of assassinating Prophet Muhammed (p) was in preparation long before the Prophet (p) set out to Tabuk. Another classical source, Ibn Juzzay mentions that this group wanted to lure the Prophet (p) into the mosque (Masjid al-Dirar) as a way for them to kill him. He also states that this event happened before Tabuk expedition. So preparation was made to murder the Prophet at Taif battle, this occurred many months before the Tabuk incident.

Tafsir Ibn Juzayy (1321 – 1357 AD) writes:

“… (to create division between the muminun) They meant to separate the believers from the Mosque of Quba’. (and in readiness for those who previously made war on Allah and His Messenger ) i.e. waiting for the one WHO FIGHTS ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER.

He was Abu ‘Amir ar-Rahib who the Messenger of Allah called a fasiq. He was one of the people of Madina. When the Messenger of Allah came to Madina, he FOUGHT with rejection and hyprocrisy, and then left for Makka and FORMED THE PARTIES OF THE IDOLATERS.

When Makka was conquered, he went to Ta’if. When the people of TA’IF became Muslim, he went to SYRIA AND SOUGHT THE HELP OF CAESAR. He died there. The people of the Mosque of Harm said, “When Abu ‘Amir came to Madina, he prayed in this mosque.” “Before” indicates what he did with the Parties.” (Tafsir Ibn Juzayy, last accessed 27th February 2017, online source, https://bewley.virtualave.net/tawba4.html )

For details surrounding the Ta’if incident, what led to it please see the following article: “The Siege Of Ta’if (Taif)”

So it is quite clear from the above early sources that the Byzantine leader long with Abu Amir were attempting to assassinate Prophet Muhammed before the Tabuk expedition was undertaken.

Glen Roberts then goes on to assert:

“Ibn Kathir is one of Islam’s most respected historians, which even the apologists admit. He worked at a time when Islamic scholars were far less concerned about spin than fact. His research determined that the expedition to Tabuk was about loot and tribute to compensate for the loss of pilgrimage revenue.”

In fact he is either blatantly lying, deliberately misleading people or does not understand the verse and just interprets it how he feels like as a way of attacking Islam. The verse 9:28 was revealed in connection with Hunayn incident which took place long before the expedition of Tabuk.

No doubt they were going to get compensated, but this has no connection in relation to the said incident under discussion. Surah 9:28 did not trigger off the Muslims to fight for mere money. What started the war as we have seen from early sources is the aggression and hostility from the Byzantine’s.

Roberts then goes on to conclude on Ibn Kathir’s quotation:

“The Muslims were not under attack when verses 9:29 and 9:123 were narrated.”

They did attempt to attack the Muslim community. Ibn Kathir himself showed that the Byzantine leader along with Abu Amir attempted to murder the Prophet before Tabuk expedition. Besides this, Ibn Sa’d and Kitab Futuh al Buldan and others who lived long before Ibn Kathir also confirm the account that the Byzantine’s assembled an army to attack the Muslim community.

It is interesting, on one hand he chooses to disparage and attack our classical scholars and earliest sources we quoted on this incident but when it suits him he quotes Ibn Kathir. You can’t have it both ways. Ibn Kathir himself says very clearly that the Byzantine’s were attempting to Murder Prophet Muhammed before the Tabuk expedition was undertaken, as the above reports cited clearly showed.

He continues:

“’Discover the Truth’ adds a few other embellishments to the story, such as claiming that the opposing army had fled (supported by neither Muslim nor independent accounts)”

The Muslim sources show that an army was there. This is confirmed in Sahih Muslim, Ibn Sa’d, Kitab Futuh al-Buldan and Al-Zurqani as shown earlier. How does that negate the fact that they fled? They left the area they wanted to engage in fighting.

When the confirmed reports show that they were there but when Muslims arrived, they went away, how does that not support our position that they fled? You are clearly clinging to straws here.

Glen Roberts continues:

“and also that “no harm was inflicted on any Christian or Jews” once Muhammad arrived at Tabuk. This is what is called a bald-faced lie. Here is the actual account of what Muhammad did…”

Our statement that no Christian or Jew was attacked was in relation to those who did not engage in fighting.

The very source you quote actually hints to us that there was a fight from both sides hence one person got killed:

“When they came out, the cavalry of the Prophet ENGAGED them, capturing Ukaydir and killing his brother.” (Ibn Kathir volume 4, page 21)

Readers should be aware Khalid was sent to get the leader Ukaydir Ibn Abd al-Malik to the Prophet. Unfortunately the leader did not want to come and instead, it seems he engaged in war against Khalid. In which it resulted in a death of one person. Khalid was not sent to fight but rather to bring the leader Ukaydir to the Prophet and sort things out in words.

If the critic claims that he was sent out to kill, then he needs to answer as to why others weren’t killed? Why was only one person harmed, but the rest were brought to the Prophet (p) and set free? Sunan Abi Dawud reports:

“Narrated Anas ibn Malik ; Uthman ibn Abu Sulayman: The Prophet sent Khalid ibn al-Walid to Ukaydir of Dumah. He was seized and they brought him to him (i.e. the Prophet). He SPARED HIS LIFE AND MADE PEACE WITH HIM on condition that he should pay jizyah (poll-tax). (Sunan Abi Dawud Book 19, Hadith 3031. Eng. Tran., Hasan Al-Albani, https://sunnah.com/abudawud/20/110 )

He concludes on this incident by saying:

“So there’s that. A Christian family going about their business is ruthlessly attacked and robbed on Muhammad’s order. At least one member is killed and the others save their lives. …”

Glen Roberts makes it out as if these people are a normal, law abiding family who have done nothing wrong other than look after their animals. This picture that is portrayed here is typical among missionaries to make the perpetrators that have done wrong as victims whilst Muhammed (p) defending himself and the community as the bad ones. Let’s explain why this picture is not in harmony with the historical sources we have available.

Some might ask what reason was there for Prophet Muhammed to send out Khalid to get Ukaydir Ibn Abd al-Malik? The leader of that region along with his people were on the side and pledged allegiance to the Byzantine’s. Hence, when the expedition of Tabuk was undertaken, these people were on the side of the Byzantine’s. They knew that the Byzantine’s were going to engage in warfare against the Muslim community but still pledged allegiance and supported them. Scholar Shaykh Allamah Shibli Nomani (1857 – 1914 CE) explains:

“Dumat al-Jandal (also pronounced as Daumat al-Jandal), which is five stages from Damascus, there was an Arab chief, UKAIDIR BY NAME, WHO OWED ALLEGIANCE TO THE ROMAN EMPEROR. Khalid Ibn Walid was despatched with four hundred and twenty men to subdue him.

Khalid made captive, and later on released him on condition that he would personally appear before the Prophet (p) to settle terms. Accordingly, he arrived accompanied by his brother and was promised protection.” (Sirat -un- Nabi [Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam] by Shaykh Allamah Shibli Nomani, volume 2, page 238)

The people of that area and their leader of Dumat al-Jandal who was Ukaydir, before the Tabuk expedition took place they engaged in hostility and attempted to attack the Muslim community in Madinah as a number of sources confirm this. Kitab al-tabaqat al-Kabir – Ibn sa’d (784 – 845 CE):

“Then (occurred) the Ghazwah of the Apostle of Allah, to Dumat al-Jandal … They (narrators) said: (The news) reached the Apostle of Allah, that a large number of men had assembled at DUMAT AL-JANDAL and that they treated cruelly the camel-riders when they passed by them, and INTENDED TO ATTACK AL-MADINAH.” (Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, [Translated by S. Moinul Haq (New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2009)], by Ibn Sa’d, volume 2, page 76)

This is also reported by Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari (838-923 CE):

“In this year he mounted an expedition against Dumat al-Jandal in the month of Rabi’i. The reason for it was that word reached the Messenger of God that a host had ASSEMBLED THERE AND HAD APPROACHED HIS TERRITORIES…” (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam: Muhammad at Medina (“Ta’rikh al-rusul wa’l-Muluk”) – [Translated by Michael Fishbein – State University of New York Press, 1997], volume VIII (8), page 4 – 5)

It was in the interest of the Muslims to make a peace treaty with this group and to make sure they stop their hostilities against the Muslim community. In which after Khalid’s incident they agreed.

As for his claim,

“agreeing to pay jizya (ie. extortion)…”

Jizya was never “extortion” as the deceptive of an “expert” claims. What was Jizya? In modern times we would understand this as a tax that was used to pay for hospitals, schools, military defence of the country, helping the poor and needy. This tax (Jizyah) was needed for the Government to function, and adequate care for its citizens be met.

The claim that the author seems to push that ‘Jizya’ was oppressive is only found by those who are pushing a certain agenda to paint Islam negatively. In fact, the same tax that was levied on non-Muslims was also imposed on to Muslims, called Zakat. It was compulsory for the Muslims to pay this as a way for the poor and needy Muslim and non-Muslim be fed and clothed. Odd that he conveniently leaves that out to his readers.

There is a remarkable story of the second Caliph Umar Ibn al-Khattab (586 – 644 CE). He was passing along a house when saw an old, blind man begging. Umar immediately touched the old man and asked him, whether he was a Christian or a Jew, the man said that he was from the Jewish faith. The old blind man then further told him that he begged in the day so he could provide himself the daily needs, for his food and pay the Jizya yearly. Umar Ibn Khattab upon hearing this story immediately summoned his people to feed him and allowed the man to longer pay any Jizya:

“To which of the people of the Book do you belong? I am a Jew, responded the blind man. Umar took him by the hand, led him to his own house, GAVE HIM SOMETHING FROM IT (i.e., food) and then sent him to the keeper of the treasure with this message, ‘See to this man and his like, for we have not done right if we devour their youth and neglect their old age.

The religious tax is for the poor and needy. The poor are the Muslims; this man is one of the needy of the people of the Book (Christians and Jews). HE FREED THE MAN FROM THE OBLIGATION TO PAY THE JIZYAH.“ (Kitab al-Kharaj, by Abu Yusuf Yaqub (d. 798), page 71)

And The companion of the Prophet Muhammed (p), Khalid Ibn Walid is said to have exempted non-Muslim men from Jizya and gave them charity and supported their families too for as long as they lived in the Muslims lands:

“Abu Yusuf recorded a report from Khalid Ibn Walid who wrote a pact for the people of al-Heerah, “I have determined for them: Any old man who is weak to work, has been afflicted with an affliction or was rich and is now poor such that his fellow religionists give him charity, he does not have to pay the Jizyah and he shall be supported from the public treasury of the Muslims as well as his dependents for as long as he remains in the land of hijrah and the land of Islam.” (Kitab al-Kharah, bu Abu Yusuf, page 290)

As Roberts was unable to find any credible evidence that concretely agrees with his claims on Q. 9:29, he then concludes by saying Islam spread to every community to Spain, and to the Indian sub-continent after Prophet Muhammed’s death by his companions. Therefore his assertions on Sura 9:29 is correct. This line of claims are not credible nor in accord with history.

No doubt Islam spread to many of the places you mentioned, but you’re leaving out a major factor and that is, many of these countries did not allow Muslims to spread the religion of Islam freely with words and were very oppressive. Missionary activities were forbidden. Hence there was a suppression by the leaders at the time. These lands, their leaders were very oppressive. Hence, it led those countries being conquered. Nobody denies the fact that those countries were conquered.

To prove that conquering was based on there being no freedom of religion is the case of Abyssinia. Abyssinia allowed Muslims to practice their religion freely. To preach openly about their religion without there being suppression or any hostility. The Prophet nor any of the companions attacked Abyssinia.

Nor did they pay any Jizya because the leader was faithful and a righteous Christian man who did not oppress Muslims. Where there was freedom for the Muslim community, the Prophet’s companions never initiated war against them. This is a historical fact. The Prophet’s statement on this matter confirms this:

“Leave the Abyssinians alone, so long as they do not take the offensive (leave you at peace).
Transliteration: utruk al-habasha ma tarkukum.” (Al Sirah al Halabiyah, volume 3, page 294)

Sunan an-Nasa’i:

“The Messenger of Allah said at that point “Leave the Ethiopians alone so long as they leave you alone, and leave the Turks alone so long as they leave you alone.’” (Sunan an-Nasa’i volume 1, Book 25, Hadith 3178. Eng. Tran., Hasan Darussalam, https://www.sunnah.com/nasai/25/92 )

Sunan Abi Dawud:

“(1594) Chapter: Prohibition Of Agitating The Turks And Abyssinians
“Narrated from Abi Sukainah One of the Companions: The Prophet said: Let (leave) the Abyssinians alone as long as they let you alone, and let the Turks alone as long as they leave you alone.” (Sunan Abi Dawud Book 38, Hadith 4288. Eng. Tran., Hasan Al-Albani, https://www.sunnah.com/abudawud/39/12 )

The relationship between Abyssinia and the early Muslim government is an excellent example for rebutting the claims that have been made by Glen Roberts.

The mission of Prophet Muhammed’s entire life was always to spread the message of Islam and stand up for justice. And he only fought those who oppressed people, as the following prayer (Du’a) of the Prophet (p) demonstrates:

“(O Allah, apportion to us such fear as should serve as a barrier between us and acts of disobedience; and such obedience as will take us to Your Jannah; and such as will make easy for us to bear in the calamities of this world.

O Allah! let us enjoy our hearing, our sight and our power as long as You keep us alive and make our heirs from our own offspring, and make our REVENGE RESTRICTED TO THOSE WHO OPPRESS US, and SUPPORT US AGAINST THOSE WHO ARE HOSTILE TO US let no misfortune afflict our Deen; let not worldly affairs be our principal concern, or the ultimate limit of our knowledge, and let not those rule over us who do not show mercy to us).” (Riyad as-Salihin Book 5, Hadith 834 Eng. Tran., https://sunnah.com/riyadussaliheen/5/21 )

Conclusion,

The claims being made against our article on 9:29 does not hold any weight when we examined them. The assertion of Glen Roberts that Surah 9:29 has no connection to Tabuk was not true. The earliest evidence shows that Sura 9:29 was revealed on the occasion of Tabuk is from Mujahid Ibn Jabr [5], a scholar who met the companions of Prophet Muhammed (p) as we showed earlier. Furthermore, the Arabic words used and the earliest historical sources showed that 9:29 was revealed on occasion to the Tabuk expedition.

The verse targeted and referred to a specific group of people. In which we found that the Byzantine’s alongside other tribes formed an alliance to attack and murder Muslims. Therefore, the claims being made to discredit our article was nothing more than a deceptive piece to deliberately mislead innocent readers. This article thoroughly showed that Glen Roberts claims made on Sura 9:29 were untenable and thus should be rejected by sane light-minded people. [6] [7]

Sadly the author of the article from TROP has a lot in common extremists right-wingers. They have created this atmosphere, a world of “us” vs “them” mentality, which contributes nothing more than hate and destruction in the world. The only way to win against these extremist bigots on all sides is to give the true message of scripture and bring communities together for a better and peaceful world.

(1) – “Social Conditions: Christians And Jews In Early Period Of Islam”

(2) – “The Relationship Of The Muslim With Non-Muslims”

(3) – “Most Misinterpreted Verses Of The Quran?”

(4) – “The Hadith ‘…Fight Until They Say There Is No god But Allah’ Explained”

(5) – “Early Expeditions And Battles Of Islam”

(6) – “The Truth About Jizyah”

References:

[1] This is the article that was written by Glen Roberts: “The Myth: Muhammad was Attacked by a Byzantine Army: The Tabuk Expedition and Verse 9:29” (Last accessed 28th February 2017 (*)), https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/muhammad/byzantine-9-29.aspx

[2] The 9th century scholar Hud b. Muhakkam Hawwari states that Surah 9:29 was revealed as a result of Tabuk, his statement is reported in the book, “Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought” by Asma Afsaruddin, page 75 – 76

[3] A summary on 9:29 from At-Tabari (838 – 923 CE):
“عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلا بِالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ… حِينَ أُمِرَ مُحَمَّدٌ وَأَصْحَابُهُ بِغَزْوَةِ تَبُوكَ
Mujahid reported concerning the verse, “Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day…” that it was revealed when Muhammad and his companions were commanded with the expedition of Tabuk.

The expedition of Tabuk was preceded by the battle of Mu’tah which began when the emissary of the Prophet was assassinated while delivering a letter to a Roman ally. (Tafseer At-Tabari 9:29 Online source, http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=1&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 )

[4] The New Encyclopedia of Islam – Cyril Glasse on the Ghassan tribe:
“Ghassanis. A South Arabian tribe, the Banu Ghassan, who migrated to Syria from the Yemen between the 3rd and 4th century AD and settled in the region of Damascus.

Many of them became monophysite Christians. Their leaders were accorded a Phylarcate, or status of vassal kingdom, under the Byzantine Emperor Justinian (527 – 569).

The Ghassanis protected the southern flank of the Byzantine Empire.” (The New Encyclopedia of Islam – Revised Edition Of The Concise Encyclopedia Of Islam [Introduction by Professor Huston Smith – Altamira Press – Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INC, 2002], by Cyril Glasse, page 154)

[5] Mujahid Ibn Jabr (645-722 AD) clearly states in his exegesis that Surah 9:29 was revealed as a result of Tabuk expedition:

“Mujahid Said: ‘This was when Muhammad (p) ordered his companions for Ghazwah Tabook.’
حين أمر محمدٌ وأصحابه بغزوة تبوك (Tafsir al-Tabari, on Surah 9:29, online source, http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/tafseer/tabary/sura9-aya29.html )
[6] In Sahih al-Bukhari the Prophet (p) is reported to have said that he will not sit down while the enemy is out there trying to persecute him or his community:

“I saw the Messenger of God, on the day of the battle with the confederates while he was carrying so much earth for the trench that his abdomen was covered. The Prophet was saying, “O God, had you not guided us, we would not have given charity nor prayed.

Send tranquility upon us and make our stance firm if we encounter the enemy. Verily, THEY WERE THE FIRST TO TRANSGRESS AGAINST US. IF THEY INTEND PERSECUTION, THEN WE HAVE REFUSED.” (Sahih al-Bukhari volume 9, Book 90, Hadith 34, Arabic Tran.)

[7] “At the battle of Mutah, the Christian Greeks learnt to their cost what it meant to put the valour of Allah’s warriors to the test; and in their hatred of Islam’s steady growth, they busied themselves in mustering a most terrible army to crush it. The Prophet heard of this. He resolved to be first in the field and attack. Only his unshaken confidence in divine protection could have inspired him with such temerity.

How many thousands of soldiers must he gather together so as not to court irretrievable disaster? Now the moment was not in the least favourable: a long drought had withered crops and herbage; flocks were decimated; horrible famine plunged the whole region in desolation; and the torrid heat of the second half of summer destroyed all energy.

The harvest of the savoury fruit of each oasis, watered by inexhaustible wells, alone promised to be abundant and invigorating; and it was precisely when the Faithful were about to profit by the only benefits of this lean year that the Apostle issued his marching orders.

(THE LIFE OF MOHAMMAD – THE PROPHET OF ALLAH BY E. DINET and SLIMAN BEN IBRAHIM, [PARIS – THE PARIS BOOK CLUB, 11, RUE DE CHATEAUDUN], Chapter The Eighth, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/39523/39523-h/39523-h.htm )

Answering Jihad: ‘Fight Against Those Who Do Not Believe’ – Quran 9:29”

Response to the misunderstanding surrounding the Sword Verse Quran (9:5)

Posted onAugust 20, 2021November 5, 2023AuthorMohamad Mostafa Nassar

𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐕𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧 (𝟗:𝟓)

Mohamad Mostafa Nassar
Twitter:@NassarMohamadMR

Analysing Verses Surah At-Tawbah= Chapter the Repentance (9:1-13)

A Historical Examination of The Sword Verse – The Noble Quran Surah At-Tawbah= Chapter the Repentance (9:1-13)

This article seeks to examine Surah At-Tawbah= Chapter the Repentance chapter 9, verse 5 of the Quran in its historical context. Some claim that the verse ‘sanctions the killing of innocent people’, and this is how it was implemented by Prophet Mohammed (p). We shall respond to these claims in this piece.

The verse (9:5) is one of the most misquoted by opponents who want to paint the Islamic faith negatively. Whenever the verse is cited, it is sliced to pieces.

“…Then slay the idolaters wherever you find them…” – Quran (9:5)

From historical perspective, the reports (Ibn Ishaq and Tabari), and exegesis inform us that these verses were directly revealed concerning the polytheists of Arabia (Tafsir Ibn Kathir [1], Tafsir Jalalayn [2], As-Sawi [3] and Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas [4]).

To recap, in the sixth year of Hijri the Muslims and the idolaters made a treaty. Part of the treaty was that neither parties would attack the other, nor would they attack any of their allies. On this they agreed and went their ways. It did not take long when the Banu Bakr tribe (who were an ally of Quraysh) attacked and killed many of Banu Khuza’a tribe (they were allies of the Muslims).

The Quraysh being in the middle, the Muslims would have presumed that they would have tried to stop their ally (Banu Bakr) attacking and killing Banu Khuza’a. However, historical reports inform us that the polytheistic Quraysh supported banu Bakr with weapons and their members also partook in killing Banu Khuza’a. From historical point of view, we see that the Quraysh were the first to breach the terms of the treaty.

The Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) receiving news of what Banu Bakr and Quraysh idolaters did, he and his Companions assembled an army to march against them. It was on this occasion that the Muslims conquered Makkah (Tafsir Anwarul bayan).

NOTE: Although Surah Tawbah (Surah Bara’ah) mostly was revealed after the conquest of Makkah, however, these verses cited in this article (below) were revealed before that:

“‘Ruhul Ma’ani’ writes that although Surah Bara’ah was revealed after the conquest of Makkah, these verses were revealed before.” (Ruhul Ma’ani, volume 10 page 62). [5]

Analysing Verses

9:1 (This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.

9:2 So go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot weaken Allah and that Allah will bring disgrace to the unbelievers.

9:3 And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore, if you repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve.

9:4 Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).

9:5 So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

9:6 And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.

9:7 How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Messenger; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).

9:8 How (can it be)! while if they prevail against you, they would not pay regard in your case to ties of relationship, nor those of covenant; they please you with their mouths while their hearts do not consent; and most of them are transgressors.

9:9 They have taken a small price for the communications of Allah, so they turn away from His way; surely evil is it that they do.

9:10 They do not pay regard to ties of relationship nor those of covenant in the case of a believer; and these are they who go beyond the limits.

9:11 But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and We make the communications clear for a people who know.

9:12 And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief– surely their oaths are nothing– so that they may desist.

9:13 What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him if you are believers.

9:1 – In the first verse we are informed that there was a treaty which the Quraish (and other tribes) broke, except the Banu Kinanah tribe who stayed faithful (Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas).

9:2 – The idolaters are told that they can go about freely in the land for four months, once the timing comes, they will be dealt with, 1400 years ago.

9:3 – For breaking their treaty, God Almighty is inviting them to repent and turn away from the hostilities. Their plots do not in any way weaken God. There will be a punishment for those who broke the treaty and continue with their aggression.

9:4 – The punishment which the Muslims would have inflicted were only aimed at those who actively took up arms against the Muslims and broke the pact. This verse shows that the idolaters that were at peace and weren’t siding with the enemy were left alone. In Fact, God Almighty commands Muslims to fulfil their agreement with them and leave them be at peace since they have done nothing wrong against them (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas and Tafsir Ibn Kathir).

9:5 – The end of the four months, and the slaying of the idolaters, refers to those who broke the treaty, and fought against the Muslims. As the previous verse showed, not all idolaters were fought against. Only those who broke the treaty and actively participated in warfare were dealt with.

The classical scholar Ibn Al-Arabi Al-Maliki (1165 – 1240 CE) comments on Surah 9:5 and states:

“وتبين أن المراد بالآية: اقتلوا المشركين الذين يحاربونكم

What is meant by this verse (ayah) is: Fight the polytheists who are fighting against you.” (Ahkam Al-Quran, by Ibn Al-Arabi, volume 2, page 456)

9:6 – Even those idolaters who actively fought the Muslims, if they were to ask ‘protection’ from the Muslims, God Almighty commanded the believers to protect them and take them to a safe place so that they may hear the Words of the Quran.

From this verse we can see that those who wanted peace and stopped their hostilities, after hearing the recitation of the Quran – they were allowed to go freely anywhere they wished. They were not forced to convert to Islam (Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas, Tafsir al-Jalalayn and Tafsir Ibn Kathir).

9:7 – How can there be an agreement with the idolaters when they have broken pacts and fought the Muslims many times. The only agreement that is still binding are those who did not break the treaty. Those who did not fight the Muslims, their treaty was still binding. The Muslims are ordered by God to stay true to the agreement with those who stayed faithful (Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas).

9:8 – This verse is in reference to those who broke the pact and waged war against the Muslims, as explained before. The verse informs us, how can they have a pact when they get an upper hand against the Muslims, they would not hesitate to break the pact and attack the Muslims without hesitation. In short, it shows how treacherous and warlike these people were who the Muslims were up against (Tafsir al-Jalalayn and Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas).

9:9 – The disbelievers of Makkah forcefully prevented people believing in the message of Islam (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas and Tafsir Ibn Kathir).

9:10 – Here in the verse we are told that these treacherous folks do not respect ties of kinship nor any treaty. They are truly transgressors (Tafsir al-Jalalayn and Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas).

9:11 – If some of those who were at war with the Muslims repented from their past transgressions, prayed, pay zakat (poor-rate), they are brothers of the Muslims (Tafsir al-Jalalayn and Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas). A reminder to readers, those that did become Muslim, done so freely. Forced conversion in Islam is Haram (forbidden).

9:12 – Although the verse says to fight those who broke the pact and openly revile Islam. The previous verses (and Q. 9:13) show that breaking the pact and reviling Islam was not the only crime these people committed. As shown before, they also physically fought the Muslims (Khuza’a). The very next verse (9:13) clearly tells us that they attacked the Muslims (Banu Khuza’a).

9:13 – Here God says to the Muslims, why is it that you will not fight those idolaters who broke their oaths, aimed to expel Prophet Muhammed (p), and attacked the Muslims first (Tafsir al-Jalalayn and Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas). It seems from the verse that some of the Prophet’s companions, were unwilling to fight these warmongers.

Where we have addressed the verses one by one, we can see the textual context for the verses alone show that the Muslims were only fighting the idolaters as a result of them (1) breaking their treaty, (2) tried expelling the Prophet – (3) fought and attacked the Banu Khuza’ah (a non-Muslim ally of the Muslims).

Furthermore, in light of the aforementioned information, we would like to add that majority of earliest scholars like Ibn Abbas (619 – 687 AD), a companion of Prophet Muhammed, Ata b. Abi Rabah (653 – 732 AD), Mujahid b. Jabr (645 – 722 AD), and Muqatil b. Sulayman (d. 767 AD) and later exegete like Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (1149 – 1209 AD) forbade initiation of military attacks and used surah 2:190 as proof.

Professor Asma Asfaruddin:

“Early exegetes and Jurists like Ibn Abbas, Ata b. Abi Rabah, Mujahid b. Jabr, and Muqatil b. Sulayman and later exegetes like Fakhr al-Din al-Razi firmly maintained that Qur’an 2:190 unambiguously forbade the initiation of military hostilities and that military activity could ony be launched against actual, not potential, combatants. …” [6]

Tafsir al-Qurtubi:

“Then this ayat was revealed, meaning that it is lawful for you to fight if the unbelievers fight you. So, the ayat is connected to the prior mention of hajj and entering houses by the back door. After this the Prophet fought those who fought him and refrained from those who refrained from fighting him until the ayat in Surat at-Tawba (9:5) was revealed, ‘Fight the idolaters,’…

Ibn Abbas, Umar Ibn Abd’l – Aziz and Mujahid said that it is an ayat whose

judgement REMAINS OPERATIVE and means: ‘FIGHT THOSE WHO FIGHT YOU and do not transgress by killing women, Children, monks and the like,’ as will be explained. An-Nahhas said that THIS IS THE SOUNDER POSITION IN TERMS OF BOTH THE SUNNA AND IN TERMS OF LOGIC.

As for the Sunna, there is a Hadith reported by Ibn Ibn Umar that, during one of his expeditions the Messenger of Allah, saw a woman who had been killed and he ABHORRED THAT and FORBADE the killing of women and children.

As for logic, it applies to children and those like them, like Monks, the chronically ill, old men and hirelings who clearly should not be killed. When Abu Bakr sent Yazid Ibn Abi Sufwan to Syria, he commanded that he should not do harm to certain groups. Malik and others transmitted this. …” [7]

Although we touched upon Surah 9:6 briefly, it needs further clarification. Some individuals are fond of twisting the verse to mean something it was never intended to say. It is claimed that the polytheists were forced to convert to Islam or faced the sword. This claim, historically speaking is simply not true.

The seemingly all-out war verse (9:5) when we look at the verse that follows (9:6) it shows opposite of what Surah 9:5 seems to convey. The classical commentators of the Quran say that 9:6 refers to all people who want to ask for protection.

Hence, if the idolaters who were at war, stopped their hostilities and asked the Muslims then to hear the message of the Quran, and later rejected Islam. The Muslims were commanded by God to take them to a place of safety i.e., they were not killed even when they rejected Islam. This verse alone shows, the Muslims then were only fighting as a result of Quraysh’s aggression and hostilities, not for their beliefs.

Mujahid Ibn Jabr (645 – 722 AD):

“This verse guarantees the safety of people in general (insan) who came to listen to the Prophet recite from the Quran until they had returned to the place of refuge whence, they came.” [8]

9th Century scholar Hud b. Muhakkam:

“The polytheists who requests safe conduct from Muslims in order to listen to the word of God is to be so granted and returned unharmed to his place of origin, whether he embraces Islam or not. This was the view of Mujahid, for example.

Al-Kalbi is quoted as saying that the verse referred instead to a group of polytheists who wished to renew their pact with Muhammad asked them to profess Islam, offer prayers, and pay the zakat, they refused, and the Prophet LET THEM RETURN SAFELY TO THEIR HOMES. Ibn Muhakkam further notes that al-Hasan al-Basri had remarked thus on the status of this verse: ‘It is valid and unabrogated (muhkama) until the Day of Judgement.’” [9]

Al-Tabari (838 – 923 AD):

“In this verse God counsels Muhammad, ‘If someone from among the polytheists (al-Mushrikun) – those whom I have commanded that you fight and slay after the passage of the sacred months – were to ask you, O Muhammad, for safe conduct in order to listen to the word of God, then grant this protection to him so that he may hear the word of God and you may recite it to him.’

Such an individual, according to the verse, is to be subsequently ESCORTED BACK TO HIS PLACE OF SAFETY EVEN IF HE REJECTS ISLAM AND FAILS TO BELIEVE AFTER THE PROPHET’S RECITATION OF THE QUR’AN BEFORE HIM. SCHOLARS IN THE PAST WHO HAVE AGREED WITH THIS GENERAL INTERPRETATION INCLUDE IBN ISHAQ, AL-SUDDI, AND MUJAHID…” [10]

Al-Wahidi (d. 1075 AD):

“Should someone from among the same group of polytheists request safe conduct and refuge among Muslims so that he may listen to the word of God and learn of its positive commandments and interdictions, he is to be so granted and escorted back to a place of safety. This is so because they are an ignorant people, and so should be given protection and the opportunity to acquire knowledge and perhaps submit to Islam.” [11]

Al-Zamakhshari (1070 – 1143 AD):

“…if one of the polytheists, with whom no pact (mithaq) exists, were to request safe conduct from the Muslims in order to listen to the Qur’an, then he should be granted it so that he may reflect God’s words. AFTERWARD, HE IS TO BE ESCORTED BACK TO HIS HOME WHERE HE FEELS SAFE. This, al-Zamakhshari says, is established practice for all time. Al-hasan al-Basri had similarly maintained that this verse is ‘valid till the day of resurrection.’ …” [12]

Al-Razi (1149 – 1209 AD):

“on the authority of Ibn Abbas, who relates that a polytheist man asked Ali b. Abi talib, ‘if we wished to approach the Messenger after the end of this period (the four sacred months) in order to listen to the word of God or for some other reason, will we be killed?’ Ali replied in the negative and recited this verse, affirming the granting of safe conduct to him so that he may listen to the Qur’an. …

al-Razi further comments that this verse indicates that imitation of precedent (al-taqlid) is not sufficient in religion, and that critical inquiry (al-nazar) and the seeking of proofs (al-istidlal) are indispensable requirements within religion.

If emulation of precedent were enough, he argues, then this verse would not have granted a respite to this unbeliever and would have been merely given a choice between professing his belief [In Islam] or death. As this did not occur, it confirms that Muslims are required to offer safe conduct to such person and thereby assuage his fears and allow him the opportunity to deliberate upon the proofs of religion. How long such a respite should last is not known; perhaps it should be determined according to the prevalent custom (bi-l-urg), he says.” [13]

Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas (d. 1414 AD) states that Prophet Muhammed granted safe passage to any of the idolaters who asked for it. So that they may hear the Quran. If he does not believe (i.e., embrace Islam), then he is to be left alone and granted safe passage back to the land he come from:

(And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the word of Allah) so that he may hear your recitation of the words of Allah; (and AFTERWARD CONVEY HIM TO HIS PLACE OF SAFETY) TO THE PLACE HE IS GOING, IF HE REMAINS AN UNBELIEVER. (That) which I have mentioned (is because they are a folk who know not) Allah’s command and His divine Oneness. (Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas on Surah 9:6 online Source)

Tafsir al-Jalalayn also emphasizes that they were left alone if they did not believe in Islam, and were taken to their place of safety:

And if any one of the idolaters (ahadun, ‘one’, is in the nominative because of the [following] verb [istajāraka, ‘seeks your protection’] that validates it) seeks your protection, requests security from you against being killed, then grant him protection, provide security for him,

SO THAT HE MIGHT HEAR THE WORDS OF GOD — THE QUR’AN — AND AFTERWARD, CONVEY HIM TO HIS PLACE OF SECURITY, THAT IS, THE DWELLING-PLACES OF HIS FOLK, IF HE DOES NOT BELIEVE, SO THAT HE MIGHT REFLECT UPON HIS SITUATION —

that, which is mentioned, is because they are a people who do not know, the religion of God, and so they must [be made to] hear the Qur’ān in order to [come to] know [religion]. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn on Surah 9:6 – Online source)

Classical Commentaries: Quraysh Initiated War

It is interesting to note, although some of the classical exegesis emphasized on offensive Jihad and used 9:5 as evidence. They themselves acknowledged in their commentaries that the verse was revealed as a consequence of the Quraysh (Banu Bakr) initiating war first. From their exegesis, they say that Prophet Muhammed (p) nor his companions-initiated war against the idolaters.

It was the Quraysh with Banu Bakr who provoked – led the Muslims to retaliate against them. Sadly, this important information is always left out by those who want to paint the Islamic faith negatively. Let us now read what the exegesis says.

Ibn Kathir (1301 – 1373 AD):

(then stand you true to them. Verily, Allah loves those who have Taqwa.) The Messenger of Allah and the Muslims preserved the terms of the treaty with the people of Makkah from the month of Dhul-Qa`dah in the sixth year of Hijrah, until the Quraysh broke it and helped their allies, Banu Bakr, against Khuza`ah, the allies of Allah’s Messenger.

Aided by the Quraysh, Banu Bakr killed some of Bani Khuza`ah in the Sacred Area! The Messenger of Allah led an invasion army in the month of Ramadan, of the eighth year, and Allah opened the Sacred Area for him to rule over them…” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Surah 9:7, Online Source).

Ibn Kathir:

“It was also said that these Ayat refer to the idolators breaking the peace agreement with Muslims and aiding Bani Bakr, their allies, against Khuza`ah, the ally of the Messenger of Allah. This is why the Messenger of Allah marched to Makkah in the year of the victory, thus conquering it…” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Surah 9:13 –Online Source).

Tafsir Jalalayn:

(except for those you made a treaty with at the Masjid al-Haram) Referring to the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. They are the Quraysh who were exempted before. (As long as they are straight with you, be straight with them) i.e. as long as they carry out the treaty and do not break it, you should fulfill it. The ma is conditional and not adverbial. (Allah loves those who have taqwa) The Prophet was straight in his treaty with them until they broke it by helping the Banu Bakr against Khuza’a. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn on Surah 9:7 – Online source)

Tafsir al-Jalalyn:

“Will you not (a-la, ‘will not’ or ‘is not’, denotes incitement) fight a people who broke, violated, their oaths, their pacts, and intended to expel the Messenger, from Mecca — for they discussed this between them in their council assembly — initiating, combat, against you first? when they fought alongside Banu Bakr against Khuza‘a, your allies?

So, what is stopping you from fighting them? Are you afraid of them? God is more worthy of your fear, when you fail to fight them, if you are believers.” (Tafsir al-Jalalayn on Surah 9:13, Online source)

As-Sawi:

“[ As-Sawi: This refers to the Treaty of al-Hudaybiyya which stipulated that there would be no war for twenty years. The Banu Bakr formed an alliance with Quraysh and the Khuza’a with the Prophet. Banu Bakr then attacked Khuza’a and Quraysh helped them with weapons, thus breaking the treaty. ‘Amr b. ‘Allam al-Khuza’i went and informed the Prophet what had happened.

The Prophet said, “You will not be helped if I do not help you,” and made preparations and went to Makka and conquered it in 8 AH. …” (Tafsir as-Sawi on Surah 9:3 – Online source)

Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas:

“(Will ye not fight a folk) why is it that you do not fight a people, i.e. the people of Mecca (who broke their solemn pledges) which are between them and you, (and purposed to drive out the messenger) and wanted to kill the Messenger when they entered Dar al-Nadwah (and did attack you first) by breaking their pledge when they helped the Banu Bakr, their allies, against the Banu Khuza’ah, the allies of the Prophet (p)?

(What! Fear ye them?) O believers, do you fear fighting them? (Now Allah hath more right that you should fear Him) because of leaving His command, (if ye are believers).”

(Tanwir al-Miqbâs min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas on Surah 9:13 – Online Source)

Imam Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (1292 – 1350 AD) commenting on Quran 9:7,

“When God sent His Apostle (p), most of the followers of these religions responded to him and to his successors, voluntarily and willingly. NOBODY WAS COMPELLED TO DO SO. The Apostle fought only those who fought and waged war against him. He did not fight those who made peace with him, neither did he fight those who were under the pledge of truce.

He was obeying the bidding of God Most Sublime where he said:

‘Let there be no compulsion in Religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects Evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks, and God heareth and knowth all things ‘(al-Baqarah: 256).

The Apostle did not compel anyone to adopt Islam.

The above quoted verse from the Qur’an negates compulsion in the sense of prohibition that is: do not compel a soul to embrace the Religion. The verse (Sura) was revealed to admonish some of the men among the companions whose children embraced Judaism and Christianity before the advent of Islam, and where with the advent of Islam, their fathers embraced the religion of Muhammad and attempted to compel their children to follow their lead.

God Most Exalted prohibited the fathers from resorting to compulsion to inspire their children to embrace Islam out of their choice. … To him who ponders over the biography of the Prophet (p) it becomes clear that he did not compel anyone to embrace his religion, and that he only fought those who fought him.

He did not fight those who made truce with him as long as they kept and honoured the truce. He never broke a promise, for God Most High bid him to fulfil his promises to them as long as they kept theirs.

A propose, God Most Exalted said:

‘How can there be a league before God and His apostle, with the pagans, except thoe with whom ye made a treaty near the Sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them for God doth love the righteous’ (al-Tawbah: 7).

Likewise, when the Prophet Muhammad made truce with (the tribe of) Quraysh holding for ten years, HE DID NOT START ANY FIGHT WITH THEM; BUT WHEN THEY VIOLATED THE MUTUAL AGREEMENT AND RAISED ARMS AGAINST HIM, HE FOUGHT BACK…

he stopped the fight when they retreated and went off. The point is that he did not compel anyone at all to embrace his religion; but people embraced his religion voluntarily and willingly. When most of the people earth realized the True Guidance, and that he is genuinely the Apostle of God, they embraced his call. [14]

From the above classical commentaries, we read that it was Banu Bakr and Quraysh idolaters who waged war. Which led to the Muslims assembling an army against them.

As part of this article, we are also going to provide scholarly contemporary commentaries for Surah 9:5, to get a better understanding.

Professor Asma Afsaruddin:

“…The Qur’an further asserts that it is the duty of Muslims to defend those who are oppressed and who cry out to them for help (4;75), except against a people with whom the Muslims have concluded a treaty (8:72).

With regard to initiation of hostilities and conduct during war (jus in bello), the Quran has specific injunctions. Verse 2:190, which reads, ‘Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression, for God loves not aggressors,’ forbids Muslims from initiating hostilities.

Recourse to armed combat must be in response to a prior act of aggression by the opposite side. The Qur’an further counsels (5:8), ‘Let not rancor towards others cause you to incline to wrong and depart from justice. Be just; that is closer to piety.’ This verse may be understood to complement 2:190 in spirit and intent, warning against excesses that may result from an unprincipled desire to punish and exact revenge.

During the month of Ramadan in the third year of the Islamic calendar (624 CE), full-fledged hostilities broke out between the Muslims and the pagan Meccans in what became known as the battle of Badr. In this battle, a small army of Muslims decisively routed a much larger and more experienced Meccan army.

Two years later, the battle of Uhud was fought, in which the Muslims suffered severe reverses, followed by the battle of Khandaq in 627. Apart from these three major battles, a number of other minor campaigns were fought until the Prophet’s death in 632. Some of the most trenchant verses exhorting the Muslims to fight were revealed on the occasions of these military campaigns.

One such verse is 9:5, which has been termed the sword verse (ayat al-sayf). It states:

‘And when the sacred months are over, slay the polytheists wherever you find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place.

…
The first of the sword verses (9:5), with its internal reference to the polytheists who may be fought after the end of the sacred months, would circumscribe its applicability to only the pagan Arabs of Muhammad’s time; this is, in fact, how many medieval scholars, such as al-Shafi’I and al-Tabari, understood the verse.

The second of the sword verses is seemingly directed in general at the People of the Book – that is, Jews and Christians – but again, a careful reading of the verse clearly indicates that it does not refer to all the People of the Book, but only those from among them who do not, in contravention of their own laws, believe in God and the Last Day and do not forbid wrongdoing.

This understanding is borne out by comparing verse 9:29 to verses 3:113-15, for example, which state:

‘They are not all the same. Among the People of the Book are a contingent who stand [in prayer] reciting the verses of God at all times of the night while they prostrate. These are they who believe in God and the Last day and enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. They hasten to [perform] goods and they are among the righteous. And whatever they do of good will not be rejected [by God] and God knows best the God-fearing.’

The Qur’an, in another verse (2:193), makes unambiguously clear that, when hostile behavior on the part of the foes of Islam ceases, then the reason for engaging them in war also lapses.

This verse states:

‘And fight them on until there no chaos (fitna) and religion is only for God, but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.’

The Harshness of the two sword verses is thus considerably mitigated, and their general applicability significantly restricted, by juxtaposing with them conciliatory verses, such as the ones cited above, and other such verses. Among other such verses is the one that has been characterized as the peace verse (8:61):

‘If they incline toward peace, incline you toward it, and trust in God. Indeed, He alone is all-hearing, all-knowing.’
And

‘Slay them wherever you catch them and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution is worse than slaughter. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful (2:191-192).’

‘God does not forbid you from being kind and equitable to those who have nether make war on you on account of your religion nor driven you from your homes. God loves those who are equitable (60:8).’

These verses make warring against those who oppose the propagation of the message of Islam, and consequently resort to persecution of Muslims, contingent upon their continuing hostility. Should they desist from such hostile persecution and sue for peace instead, the Muslims are commanded to accede to their request.

The Qur’an (60:8) further makes clear that non-Muslims of goodwill and peaceableness cannot be the targets of war simply on account of their different religious backgrounds.” [15]

Dr. al-Buti:

“As a matter of fact, reading verse 5 of chapter 9 in isolation supports the view that Muslims should fight pagans for their Disbelief, but this same verse must be read together with the proceeding verses of the same chapter. Hence, if we read this verse (9:5) in the light of the following three verses only (9:6,7, and 8) the claim for killing pagans for their paganism becomes void. …” [16]

Conclusion:

We have examined the historical and the scholarly side related to chapter 9 (specifically 9:5), there is one conclusion that can be drawn: Chapter 9, verse 5 was meant to be defensive.

In the sense, that it was revealed concerning the pagan Arabs who broke the treaty and fought the banu Khuza’a. Prophet Muhammed (p) did not fight them for their beliefs, rather for breaking the treaty and killing Banu Khuza’a’s people.

As shown, the true Islam, real Islam which was practiced by Prophet Muhammed (p) was to repel evil and the brutality of Quraysh.

References:

[1] Ibn Kathir: “(then stand you true to them. Verily, Allah loves those who have Taqwa.) The Messenger of Allah and the Muslims preserved the terms of the treaty with the people of Makkah from the month of Dhul-Qa`dah in the sixth year ﴿of Hijrah﴾, until the Quraysh broke it and helped their allies, Banu Bakr, against Khuza`ah, the allies of Allah’s Messenger.

Aided by the Quraysh, Banu Bakr killed some of Bani Khuza`ah in the Sacred Area! The Messenger of Allah led an invasion army in the month of Ramadan, of the eighth year, and Allah opened the Sacred Area for him to rule over them, all thanks are due to Allah. …” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Surah 9:7, Online Source).

AND Tafsir Ibn Kathir:

“It was also said that these Ayat refer to the idolators breaking the peace agreement with Muslims and aiding Bani Bakr, their allies, against Khuza`ah, the ally of the Messenger of Allah. This is why the Messenger of Allah marched to Makkah in the year of the victory, thus conquering it…” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Surah 9:13, Online Source).

[2] Tafsir Jalalayn: (except for those you made a treaty with at the Masjid al-Haram) Referring to the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. They are the Quraysh who were exempted before. (As long as they are straight with you, be straight with them) i.e., as long as they carry out the treaty and do not break it, you should fulfill it.

The ma is conditional and not adverbial. (Allah loves those who have taqwa) The Prophet was straight in his treaty with them until they broke it by helping the Banu Bakr against Khuza’a. (9:7). (Tafsir al-Jalalayn on Surah 9:7, Online source)

AND Tafsir al-Jalalyn 9:13

Will you not (a-la, ‘will not’ or ‘is not’, denotes incitement) fight a people who broke, violated, their oaths, their pacts, and intended to expel the Messenger, from Mecca — for they discussed this between them in their council assembly — initiating, combat, against you first?

when they fought alongside Banu Bakr against Khuza‘a, your allies?

So, what is stopping you from fighting them? Are you afraid of them? God is more worthy of your fear, when you fail to fight them, if you are believers. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn on Surah 9:13, Online source)

[3] As-Sawi:[ As-Sawi: This refers to the Treaty of al-Hudaybiyya which stipulated that there would be no war for twenty years. The Banu Bakr formed an alliance with Quraysh and the Khuza’a with the Prophet. Banu Bakr then attacked Khuza’a and Quraysh helped them with weapons, thus breaking the treaty. ‘Amr b.

‘Allam al-Khuza’i went and informed the Prophet what had happened. The Prophet said, “You will not be helped if I do not help you,” and made preparations and went to Makkah and conquered it in 8 AH.

In 9 AH, the Prophet wanted to make hajj and he was told that the idolaters were there doing tawaf of the House naked. He said, “I do not want to go on hajj until that no longer takes place. So, he sent Abu Bakr that year as amir over the hajj to carry out the hajj for the people.

Then he, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, sent Ô Ali to recite these verses on the Day of Sacrifice and to say that after that year, no idolater could make hajj nor do tawaf of the House naked.] (Tafsir as-Sawi on Surah 9:3 – Online source)

[4] Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas:

“(Will ye not fight a folk) why is it that you do not fight a people, i.e. the people of Mecca (who broke their solemn pledges) which are between them and you, (and purposed to drive out the messenger) and wanted to kill the Messenger when they entered Dar al-Nadwah (and did attack you first) by breaking their pledge when they helped the Banu Bakr,

their allies, against the Banu Khuza’ah, the allies of the Prophet (pbuh)? (What! Fear ye them?) O believers, do you fear fighting them? (Now Allah hath more right that you should fear Him) because of leaving His command, (if ye are believers).” (Tanwir al-Miqbâs min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas on Surah 9:13 – Online Source)

[5] Tafsir Anwarul Bayan volume 2, page 427

[6] Islam and International Law: Engaging Self-Centrism from a Plurality of Perspectives, Asma Asfaruddin, volume 7, page 60.

[7] Tafsir Al Qurtubi, Classical Commentary Of The Holy Qur’an, [Dar al-Taqwa], volume 1, page 490 – 491
[8] Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought By Asma Afsaruddin, page 88
[9] Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought By Asma Afsaruddin, page 88
[10] Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought by Asma Afsaruddin, page 89
[11] Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought by Asma Afsaruddin, page 89
[12] Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought By Asma Afsaruddin, page 89
[13] Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought By Asma Afsaruddin, page 89 – 90
[14] Guidance To The Uncertain In Reply To The Jews And The Nazarenes (‘Hidayatul Hayara Fi Ajwibatul Yahud wa al-Nasara’) – [Translated by Abdelhay El-Masry, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah] by Imam Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziah, page 25 – 27
[15] Crescent and Dove: Peace and Conflict Resolution in Islam [United States Institute Of Peace Press Washington, D.C., 2010] by Asma Afsaruddin, page 44 – 47
[16] Muslims and Non-Muslims : Peace and Covenant [2004], by Mashhad Al-ʻAllaf, page 39 – 40

Allah knows Best.

𝐁𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞

𝐂𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐄𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧 𝐁𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐲𝐥𝐞

𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐁𝐞𝐬𝐭.

Revisiting ‘I Have Been Commanded To Fight…’ Hadith

The Hadith ‘…Fight Until They Say There Is No god But Allah’ Explained

Allah Made Me Victorious By Awe, (By Frightening My Enemies) For a Distance of One Month’s Journey

I have been made victorious with terror

Does Islam Force Itself On Others?

Jihad – The way of peace and Justice, the path to Heaven.

The Sword Verse”: Surah 9:13 – 24

An Historical Examination Of The Sword Verse – Surah 9:5

A Historical Examination of The Sword Verse – Surah 9:5

Quran 9:5 – Sword Verse

Quran 9:5 – Sword Verse – Contextual Explanation

How can Islam be a religion of peace when Surah An-Nasr=chapter the Divine support (110) and Surah At-Tawbah=Chapter the repentance (9) that include the Sword verse was the last to be revealed from the Qur’an?

The “I have been made victorious with terror” and ” I have been helped by terror” Hadiths – In Context

The Contradiction in the Threat of Death and the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Book of Genesis, and its Counterpart in the Justice of Allah, His Instruction, and His Acceptance of Adam’s Repentance in the Qur’an

Posted onOctober 9, 2025October 13, 2025AuthorMohamad Mostafa Nassar

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐃𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐥 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡, 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐝𝐚𝐦’𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧

Mohamad Mostafa Nassar
Twitter:@NassarMohamadMR

𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧:

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦?

• 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝟐:𝟏𝟕: “…𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐞.”

• 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝟓:𝟓: “𝐒𝐨 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐀𝐝𝐚𝐦 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐡𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐝.”

• 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝟑:𝟒: “𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐞.”

𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐩𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐫 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞; 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫, 𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫. 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐟𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐬: “𝐁𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐔𝐬, 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐥” (𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝟑:𝟐𝟐), 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐬𝐮𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐀𝐝𝐚𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐥 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐬—𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐥—𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦.

𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐥𝐲: 𝐀𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐡𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐞 “𝐎𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐞”

𝐋𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐒𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞

• 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 “𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐞” (𝐢𝐧 𝐇𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐰: מֹות תָּמוּת 𝐦𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐚𝐦𝐮𝐭) 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐫𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡.

• 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 “𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐞𝐚𝐭” (בְּיוֹם 𝐛𝐞𝐲𝐨𝐦) 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧 𝐇𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐰 𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞 (𝐚𝐭/𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧/𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲), 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬.

𝟐) 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧 𝐉𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐎𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐦

𝟏. 𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡:

𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝: 𝐀𝐝𝐚𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐭𝐞, 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐆𝐨𝐝.

𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐞𝐬: “𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧” 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬 (𝟑:𝟏𝟗). 𝐈𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐧 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬 (𝟓:𝟓). 𝐇𝐚𝐝 𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬. 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 “𝐦𝐨̄𝐭 𝐭𝐚𝐦𝐮̄𝐭” (“𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐞”) 𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐚 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞.

𝟐. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 (𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝):

𝐀𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫: 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧; 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 “𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐞𝐚𝐭”, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐲𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐲.

𝟑. 𝐀 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬:

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐤 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐬 (𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐬: “𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐝, 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 …”).

𝐀𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫: 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. 𝐅𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞, 𝟗𝟑𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦, 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠.

𝟒. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡:

𝐀𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧; 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫, 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭. 𝐇𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 “𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡” 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝.

𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭: 𝐁𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭, 𝐚𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 — “𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲… 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐞” — 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝.

𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐲: “𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐥” 𝐁𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐀𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐄𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬 (𝟑:𝟐𝟐) 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐬: “𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐮𝐬, 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐥.” 𝐈𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐨.

𝐈𝐟 𝐀𝐝𝐚𝐦 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐥 (𝐚𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 “𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐮𝐬”), 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐲𝐞𝐭 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭?

𝐒𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐬𝐮𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐢𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞’𝐬 𝐚𝐱𝐢𝐬 “𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞,” 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐨𝐱 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐲 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 “𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐝.”

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐨𝐱 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞: 𝐚 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐚𝐱𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 “𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞,” 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐲𝐞𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝.

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐝: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚̄𝐧𝐢𝐜 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 — 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞, 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥, 𝐏𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚̄𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐝𝐚𝐦 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥, 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞:

𝟏) 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥

“𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐞 𝐭𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐀𝐝𝐚𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐬—𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦” (𝐚𝐥-𝐁𝐚𝐪𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐡 𝟐:𝟑𝟏).

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠: 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭; 𝐭𝐡𝐮𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲.

𝟐) 𝐀𝐧 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐡𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞

“𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞, 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐫𝐬” (𝐚𝐥-𝐁𝐚𝐪𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐡 𝟐:𝟑𝟓).

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐡𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟; 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝.

𝟑) 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐥𝐢𝐩 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐏𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭

“𝐒𝐨 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐲𝐭̣𝐚̄𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐩 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧” [𝐚𝐥-𝐁𝐚𝐪𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐡, 𝟐:𝟑𝟔].

“𝐇𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝, ‘𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐝!’” [𝐚𝐥-𝐀ʿ𝐫𝐚̄𝐟, 𝟕:𝟐𝟒].

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧/𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲.

𝟒) 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝

“𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐀𝐝𝐚𝐦 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞” [𝐚𝐥-𝐁𝐚𝐪𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐡, 𝟐:𝟑𝟕].

“𝐎𝐮𝐫 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝, 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬…” [𝐚𝐥-𝐀ʿ𝐫𝐚̄𝐟, 𝟕:𝟐𝟑].

“𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐦, 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐦” [𝐓̣𝐚̄ 𝐇𝐚̄, 𝟐𝟎:𝟏𝟐𝟐].

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐧; 𝐭𝐡𝐮𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 “𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐢𝐧” 𝐧𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐮𝐩𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞.

𝟓) 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐢𝐧

“𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐨 𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫” (𝐚𝐥-𝐀𝐧ʿ𝐚̄𝐦 𝟔:𝟏𝟔𝟒; 𝐚𝐥-𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚̄ʾ 𝟏𝟕:𝟏𝟓; 𝐅𝐚̄𝐭̣𝐢𝐫 𝟑𝟓:𝟏𝟖; 𝐚𝐥-𝐙𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐫 𝟑𝟗:𝟕).

“𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 [𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝] 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬” (𝐚𝐥-𝐍𝐚𝐣𝐦 𝟓𝟑:𝟑𝟗).

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫ʾ𝐚̄𝐧𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞: 𝐧𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫, 𝐧𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚̄𝐧𝐢𝐜 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭:

(𝟏) 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥,

(𝟐) 𝐚 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐡𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧,

(𝟑) 𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧,

(𝟒) 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞,

(𝟓) 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞,

(𝟔) 𝐧𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐢𝐧.

𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐥𝐲: 𝐀 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 “𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭.”

𝐀𝐱𝐢𝐬	𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬	𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚̄𝐧
𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭	“𝐎𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐢𝐭, 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐞,” 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐀𝐝𝐚𝐦 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝟗𝟑𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬	𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧/𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭; 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐩𝐬𝐞
𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭	𝐃𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐲𝐞𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐲	𝐀 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠: 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐧 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐡
𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥	𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝟑:𝟐𝟐 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 “𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐥” 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠	“𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐞 𝐭𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐀𝐝𝐚𝐦 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐬” 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐡𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠
𝐀𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐫𝐲 (𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭)	𝐈𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝: “𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐞,” 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐢𝐭 𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲	𝐍𝐨 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦; 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞	𝐍𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐀𝐝𝐚𝐦’𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐝	𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚̄𝐧𝐢𝐜 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐬 (𝐚𝐥-𝐁𝐚𝐪𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐡 𝟐:𝟑𝟕; 𝐓𝐚̄𝐡𝐚̄ 𝟐𝟎:𝟏𝟐𝟐)
𝐈𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐢𝐧	𝐈𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬	“𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐨 𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫” — 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞, 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲

𝐅𝐢𝐟𝐭𝐡: 𝐀 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐃𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐀𝐝𝐚𝐦 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐞 “𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲” 𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐢𝐭? 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝟗𝟑𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬?

𝐀𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫: 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭’𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, “𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐞.” 𝐈𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭, 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫ʾ𝐚̄𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 (𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐞) 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭.

𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐀𝐝𝐚𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐥 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠; 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐡𝐢𝐦?

𝐀𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫: 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 (𝟑:𝟐𝟐). 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫ʾ𝐚̄𝐧 𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲; 𝐢𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 (𝟐:𝟑𝟏), 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐡𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 (𝟐:𝟑𝟓), 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞.

𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭?

𝐀𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫: 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬:

𝟏) 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥.

𝟐) 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝.

𝟑) 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

𝟒) 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞.

𝟓) 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐢𝐧.

𝐒𝐢𝐱𝐭𝐡: 𝐄𝐱𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐕𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐬 (𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠)

• 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥: “𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐞 𝐭𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐀𝐝𝐚𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐬—𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦” (𝐚𝐥-𝐁𝐚𝐪𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐡 𝟐:𝟑𝟏).

• 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐡𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠: “𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞 …” (𝐚𝐥-𝐁𝐚𝐪𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐡 𝟐:𝟑𝟓).

• 𝐈𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞: “𝐒𝐨 𝐇𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 [𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧] 𝐢𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧” (𝐚𝐥-𝐁𝐚𝐪𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐡 𝟐:𝟑𝟔); “𝐇𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝, ‘𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐝 [𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐢𝐭]’” (𝐚𝐥-𝐀ʿ𝐫𝐚̄𝐟 𝟕:𝟐𝟒).

• 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞: “𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐀𝐝𝐚𝐦 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞” (𝐚𝐥-𝐁𝐚𝐪𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐡 𝟐:𝟑𝟕); “𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐦, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐦” (𝐓̣𝐚̄ 𝐇𝐚̄ 𝟐𝟎:𝟏𝟐𝟐); “𝐎𝐮𝐫 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝, 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐟 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐮𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐲 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐮𝐬, 𝐰𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐬” (𝐚𝐥-𝐀ʿ𝐫𝐚̄𝐟 𝟕:𝟐𝟑).

• 𝐃𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐢𝐧: “𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐨 𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫” (𝐚𝐥-𝐀𝐧ʿ𝐚̄𝐦 𝟔:𝟏𝟔𝟒; 𝐚𝐥-𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚̄ʾ 𝟏𝟕:𝟏𝟓; 𝐅𝐚̄𝐭̣𝐢𝐫 𝟑𝟓:𝟏𝟖; 𝐚𝐥-𝐙𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐫 𝟑𝟗:𝟕); “𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 [𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝] 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬” (𝐚𝐥-𝐍𝐚𝐣𝐦 𝟓𝟑:𝟑𝟗).

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧

𝐀) 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬—𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠—𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐨𝐱 𝐢𝐧 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞 𝐨𝐟 “𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞” 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐝.

𝐁) 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫ʾ𝐚̄𝐧𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭, 𝐛𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭, 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐞𝐩𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞: 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞, 𝐚 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭, 𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲, 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝.

𝐂) 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐲, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫ʾ𝐚̄𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐣𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥-𝐇̣𝐚𝐪𝐪 (𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐡̣𝐚̄𝐧𝐚𝐡𝐮) 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐇𝐢𝐦 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐆𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐲: 𝐀𝐥𝐥-𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐌𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐮𝐥.

𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐁𝐞𝐬𝐭.

𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬:

Expert Theological Refutation of Alleged Chronological and Spatial Contradictions in Quranic Narratives of Iblīs- Quran (7:18-20) vs Quran (15:16-18)

Satan Committed the Original sin by disobeying Almighty Allah

What is the difference between “sin,” “disobedience,” “wrongdoing,” “transgression,” and “gross misconduct” in Islam?

5 Conditions to Get Your Repentance Accepted in Islam

Did God forgives Adam and Eve ?

Concept of Sins in Islam

Repentance for Sins in Islam

The Christian Arrogance and the mirage of an unconditional Salvation

Why should Allah blame us and call us foolish and ignorant for accepting Amana(trust) Adam accepted without our Consent as per Qur’an (33:72)?

Why will God hold us responsible for the sin committed by Adam and Eve (original sin) without our consent?

Are Muslims Guaranteed Paradise?

Did Jesus really forgive sins? Or is this another trinity lie?

Answering Common Questions on Salvation That Christians Pose to Muslims

Paul the False Apostle of Satan

Divine Decree, Human Responsibility, and Prophetic Wisdom: A Comprehensive Refutation of Islamophobic Misinterpretations of Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari 6614

Response to Christianity and Judaism

Paul the False Apostle of Satan

Miracles of The Glorious Holy Quran

Shooting Stars, Allah’s Missiles to Scare the Jins?

The Science of Shooting Stars

Can you provide clarity on shooting stars mentioned in the Qur’an (37:6)?

The Sky Is Building Quran (91:5)

Does a contradiction really exist between Qur’an (10:3) and Qur’an (41:9-12)

Earth was created before heaven but spread out after creation of heaven Quran (67:5)

The Divine Number 12, 12 Gods, 12 Disciples, 12 Tribes and the Zodiac?

Which one was the origin of the Universe/ cosmos as per the Noble Qur’an, water, or smoke?

Is the Bible distorted?

Posted onAugust 9, 2025August 9, 2025AuthorMohamad Mostafa Nassar

𝐈𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝?

Mohamad Mostafa Nassar
Twitter:@NassarMohamadMR

𝐁𝐲 𝐁𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫: 𝐖𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐚 𝐒𝐡𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐚

𝐈𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲—𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐰, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐤, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐋𝐮𝐤𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐉𝐨𝐡𝐧—𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐱𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐝 (“𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚̄𝐡 𝐓𝐚ʿ𝐚̄𝐥𝐚̄”) 𝐭𝐨 𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬 (“ʿ𝐈̄𝐬𝐚̄ ʿ𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐡𝐢 𝐚𝐥-𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐚̄𝐦”)?

𝐈𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐥𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐌𝐚𝐣𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜 (“𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚̄𝐡 ʿ𝐀𝐳𝐳𝐚 𝐰𝐚 𝐉𝐚𝐥𝐥”), 𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧 (“𝐚𝐥-𝐐𝐮𝐫ʾ𝐚̄𝐧 𝐚𝐥-𝐊𝐚𝐫𝐢̄𝐦”) 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬? 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬, 𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐲𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬?

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐭.

𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐮𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥 (“𝐚𝐥-𝐈𝐧𝐣𝐢̄𝐥”) 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡, 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫, 𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬 𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐲 (“ʿ𝐈̄𝐬𝐚̄ 𝐢𝐛𝐧 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐲𝐚𝐦 ʿ𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐡𝐢 𝐚𝐥-𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐚̄𝐦”). 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭, 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐌𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 (“𝐌𝐮̄𝐬𝐚̄ ʿ𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐡𝐢 𝐚𝐥-𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐚̄𝐦”) 𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭—𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐡 (“𝐚𝐥-𝐓𝐚𝐰𝐫𝐚̄𝐡”). 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥 (“𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐢̄ 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚̄ʾ𝐢̄𝐥”).

𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬 (“ʿ𝐈̄𝐬𝐚̄ ʿ𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐡𝐢 𝐚𝐥-𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐚̄𝐦”) 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝, 𝐚𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 𝐌𝐮𝐡𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐝 ﷺ (“𝐬̣𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚̄ 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚̄𝐡𝐮 ʿ𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐡𝐢 𝐰𝐚-𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐦”) 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥 (“𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐢̄ 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚̄ʾ𝐢̄𝐥”) 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 (“𝐌𝐮̄𝐬𝐚̄ ʿ𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐡𝐢 𝐚𝐥-𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐚̄𝐦”) 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐡. 𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐡 (“𝐚𝐥-𝐓𝐚𝐰𝐫𝐚̄𝐡”), 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧 (“𝐚𝐥-𝐐𝐮𝐫ʾ𝐚̄𝐧”), 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥 (“𝐚𝐥-𝐈𝐧𝐣𝐢̄𝐥”) 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡, 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬, 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐡𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝.

𝐒𝐨, 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲, 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧?

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐮𝐭𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐢𝐬: 𝐧𝐨.

𝐋𝐞𝐭 𝐮𝐬 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞… 𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 ʿ𝐈̄𝐬𝐚̄ ʿ𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐡𝐢 𝐚𝐬-𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐚̄𝐦 (“𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦”) 𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐬: “𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐲𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐨𝐠𝐮𝐞: 𝐃𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐝; 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞”?

𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧? 𝐖𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐭𝐨 ʿ𝐈̄𝐬𝐚̄ ʿ𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐡𝐢 𝐚𝐬-𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐚̄𝐦 (“𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦”) 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐢𝐦: “𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐲𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐨𝐠𝐮𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐚𝐰 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧—𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐥𝐲. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝, 𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦: 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐩? 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐢𝐫𝐥 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐥𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐦”?

𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡?

𝐃𝐢𝐝 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡, 𝐄𝐱𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐌𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐌𝐚𝐣𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐲 (ʿ𝐀𝐳𝐳𝐚 𝐰𝐚 𝐉𝐚𝐥𝐥), 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬 (ʿ𝐈̄𝐬𝐚̄) 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐡𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬: “𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐝 𝐇𝐢𝐦,” 𝐚𝐧𝐝, “𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐚𝐛𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞, 𝐇𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐲𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐨𝐠𝐮𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐇𝐢𝐦 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝, 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠: 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬? 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐬𝐝𝐨𝐦?”

𝐖𝐡𝐨𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐲𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐧𝐨𝐫 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞; 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚 𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐧𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐥 𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝𝐬 (𝐑𝐚𝐛𝐛 𝐚𝐥-ʿ𝐀̄𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢̄𝐧) 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐬.

𝐃𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐞 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐢𝐭, 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬, 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬, 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐧’𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐫.

𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲, 𝐧𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 — 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐭𝐨 ʿ𝐈̄𝐬𝐚̄ “ʿ𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐡𝐢 𝐚𝐬-𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐚̄𝐦” (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦).

𝐑𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐥𝐲 𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐦𝐞𝐧 (𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐰, 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐤, 𝐋𝐮𝐤𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐉𝐨𝐡𝐧) 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬, 𝐛𝐢𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬; 𝐭𝐡𝐮𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥-𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐠𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 “𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥” 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐝.

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬, 𝐢𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐈𝐧 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐬 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞.

𝐇𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 — 𝐚𝐥-𝐈𝐧𝐣𝐢̄𝐥 — 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐲, 𝐮𝐧𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐥𝐲, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐲, 𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝 “𝐚𝐥-𝐈𝐧𝐣𝐢̄𝐥,” 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 ʿ𝐈̄𝐬𝐚̄ “ʿ𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐡𝐢 𝐚𝐬-𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐚̄𝐦” (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦).

𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧-𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡.

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐮𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥; 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫, 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥 𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐭, 𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐭, 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝.

𝐖𝐞 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥 𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 — 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐬𝐭.

𝐇𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫, 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐬𝐨𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐮𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐬, 𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐝, 𝐢𝐬 — 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐮𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐬 — 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥, 𝐧𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐲, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐧𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐫.

𝐋𝐞𝐭 𝐮𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐫: 𝐰𝐞, 𝐚𝐬 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐬, 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧 “𝐀𝐥-𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐥-𝐊𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐦,” 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧;

𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐒𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐚𝐡 “𝐚𝐥-𝐒𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐚𝐡 𝐚𝐥-𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐟𝐚𝐡,” 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 “𝐑𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐥 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡, 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡𝐮 ‘𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐡𝐢 𝐰𝐚 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐦,” 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡; 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐛𝐢𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐡𝐲 “𝐚𝐥-𝐒𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐡 𝐚𝐥-𝐍𝐚𝐛𝐚𝐰𝐢𝐲𝐲𝐚𝐡 𝐚𝐥-𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐚𝐡” 𝐭𝐨 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐰, 𝐋𝐮𝐤𝐞, 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐤, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐉𝐨𝐡𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐢𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐡𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 ʿ𝐈̄𝐬𝐚̄ ʿ𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐡𝐢 𝐚𝐥-𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐚̄𝐦 (“𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐛𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞”), 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐡, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐢𝐦.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬: 𝐀𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡, 𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬? 𝐎𝐫 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞?

𝐁𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫, 𝐰𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐭𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐧𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐬, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐥𝐲. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝𝐬 (“𝐑𝐚𝐛𝐛 𝐚𝐥-ʿ𝐀̄𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢̄𝐧”) 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 ʿ𝐈̄𝐬𝐚̄ 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐌𝐮𝐡̣𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐝 𝐬̣𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚̄𝐡𝐮 ʿ𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐡𝐢 𝐰𝐚-𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐦 (“𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦”).

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚 𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬, 𝐢𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐬.

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥𝐬, 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐥𝐲 𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬.

𝐈𝐧 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧; 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬, 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐲𝐥𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐚𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 ﷺ, 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐦 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐫.

𝐈𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐦𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐨𝐮𝐬, 𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐯𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐲𝐧𝐨𝐧𝐲𝐦𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞 𝐚 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 — 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲, 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞.

𝐀𝐬 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐬, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐚𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 ﷺ, 𝐰𝐞 𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐮𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐮𝐬 𝐢𝐬: 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧?

𝐃𝐢𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬?

𝐃𝐢𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠?

𝐋𝐞𝐭 𝐮𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐋𝐮𝐤𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤:

“𝐒𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐰 𝐮𝐩 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐮𝐬, 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐬 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐲𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝, 𝐈 𝐭𝐨𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝, 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐲𝐨𝐮, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭…”

𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐬, 𝐋𝐮𝐤𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐦, 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐢𝐦, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐇𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐢𝐦!

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈𝐛𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐡̣𝐚̄𝐪 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐛𝐧 𝐇𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐚̄𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐢𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐡𝐲 (𝐬𝐢̄𝐫𝐚𝐡) 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 ﷺ “𝐬̣𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚̄𝐡𝐮 ʿ𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐡𝐢 𝐰𝐚-𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐦”, 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬.

𝐀𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 — 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫. 𝐀 𝐟𝐞𝐰 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 ʿ𝐈̄𝐬𝐚̄ ʿ𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐡𝐢 𝐚𝐬-𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐚̄𝐦 (“𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦”), 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝, 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝. 𝐀𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐉𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬.

𝐒𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐢𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐬.

𝐃𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 (𝐚𝐡̣𝐤𝐚̄𝐦 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫ʿ𝐢𝐲𝐲𝐚𝐡)?

𝐘𝐞𝐬, 𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐥𝐲.

𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭, 𝐢𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐥𝐚𝐰, 𝐚𝐧 “𝐀𝐡𝐥 𝐚𝐥-𝐊𝐢𝐭𝐚̄𝐛” (𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤) 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞.

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 — 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧, 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤.

𝐇𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫, 𝐢𝐟 𝐰𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐈𝐧𝐣𝐢̄𝐥 (𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥), 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤 “𝐀𝐡𝐥 𝐚𝐥-𝐊𝐢𝐭𝐚̄𝐛” 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐚 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐮𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦.

𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐁𝐞𝐬𝐭.

𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬:

The False Jesus

Who Altered the Bible? The Blacklist of Those Accused of Tampering with the Bible

Response to Christianity and Judaism

Paul the False Apostle of Satan

Response to Atheism

Miracles of The Glorious Holy Quran

Quran confirms the Corruption of the Torah and Gospels

The Schizophrenia and Christian madness: A God creates his mother so that she may give birth to him

Evidence that the corruption of the New Testament had a profound impact on the corruption and distortion of the original doctrine preached by the Prophet Jesus, son of Mary

Fulfilling the Quranic Prophecy: Understanding the Jewish Defensive Warfare from Fortified Villages and Behind Walls Quran (59:14)

32 Christian scholars Backed up by 50 Christian cooperating denominations confesses King James Version has grave defects.

Christian Scholars refuting the status of the NT as an inspired scripture

Does The Quran (5:44), Quran (5:47), Quran (5:68) order Jews and Christians to judge according to current Torah and Gospel?

Does Quran (5:43) And Quran (5:47) Prove the Torah and Injeel Both Were Never Corrupted ?

Paul the False Apostle of Satan

The Lost Torah

Did the Quran confirm the Torah and Bible during Prophet Muhammed?

Hadith confirms the Corruption of the Torah and Gospels

Why did the GOD of Islam allow for the “original” Bible to get corrupted or lost?

Does the Quran Really Confirm the Bible is unchanged?

Refuting The Argument Regarding Allah’s Words Do Not Change -Quran (6:115)

Does Islam affirm the authenticity of the current Bible?

The False Jesus

Posted onAugust 9, 2025August 9, 2025AuthorMohamad Mostafa Nassar

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐞 𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬

Mohamad Mostafa Nassar
Twitter:@NassarMohamadMR

𝐁𝐲 𝐁𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫: 𝐖𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐚 𝐒𝐡𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐚

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 “𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬” 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞, 𝐚𝐬 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲. 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦, 𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐡, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲.

𝐇𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫, 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐚𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐜𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐬, 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐬.

𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 “𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬” 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐜 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐰 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 “𝐘𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐡𝐮𝐚,” 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐩𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐭𝐲𝐦𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐒𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬. 𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞. 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐌𝐮̄𝐬𝐚̄ 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐚𝐬 “𝐌𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬,” 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐈𝐛𝐫𝐚̄𝐡𝐢̄𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 “𝐀𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐡𝐚𝐦,” 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐨 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡.

𝐒𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐲, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧, 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞? 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐢𝐬 “𝐘𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐡𝐮𝐚” 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐬 “𝐘𝐚𝐬𝐮̄ʿ” 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐚𝐬 “𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬”?

𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 “𝐘𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐡𝐮𝐚,” 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐮̄𝐬𝐚̄ (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦). 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐜, 𝐢𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 “𝐘𝐮̄𝐬𝐡𝐚ʿ,” 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡, “𝐉𝐨𝐬𝐡𝐮𝐚.” 𝐘𝐞𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐬𝐨-𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬—𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐝 “𝐘𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐡𝐮𝐚” 𝐢𝐧 𝐇𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐰—𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐬 “𝐘𝐚𝐬𝐮̄ʿ” 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐚𝐬 “𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬”! 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐟𝐮𝐥?

𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐡? 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧?

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧, 𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐠𝐨 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐡, 𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦, 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐥𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐲 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝: “𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝: 𝐎 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐲, 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐠𝐥𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐇𝐢𝐦; 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐡 𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬, 𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐲” [𝐀̄𝐥 ʿ𝐈𝐦𝐫𝐚̄𝐧: 𝟒𝟓]. 𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 “ʿ𝐈̄𝐬𝐚̄” 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝.

𝐈𝐟 𝐰𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐰 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐫, 𝐰𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 “ʿ𝐈̄𝐬𝐚̄” 𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐰 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 עֵשָׂו (ʿ𝐄𝐬𝐚𝐯), 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 “ʿ𝐈̄𝐬𝐚̄𝐟” 𝐨𝐫 “ʿ𝐈̄𝐬𝐮̄” 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐚𝐬 𝐄𝐬𝐚𝐮 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐈̄𝐬𝐮̄.

𝐒𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐭 𝐮𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐁𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡, ʿ𝐈̄𝐬𝐚̄ (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦), 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐤 𝐚𝐬 Ἰησοῦς (𝐈𝐞̄𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐬), 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐈𝐬𝐨𝐬. 𝐈𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐋𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐈𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬, 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐬 𝐈𝐬𝐨𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐚𝐬 𝐈𝐄𝐒𝐔𝐒, 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐤.

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐲𝐞𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐬, 𝐢𝐬 𝐈𝐬𝐨𝐬 𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 ʿ𝐄̄𝐬𝐚𝐰 (𝐄𝐬𝐚𝐮) 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐘𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐡𝐮𝐚ʿ (𝐉𝐨𝐬𝐡𝐮𝐚)?

𝐈𝐟 𝐰𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐤 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐋𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐰 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 ʿ𝐄̄𝐬𝐚𝐰 (𝐄𝐬𝐚𝐮), 𝐢𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫ʾ𝐚̄𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭 — 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐢𝐬 ʿ𝐈̄𝐬𝐚̄, 𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐲𝐚𝐦, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 “𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬.” 𝐈𝐧 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡, 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐄𝐬𝐚𝐮 𝐨𝐫 𝐈𝐄𝐒𝐔𝐒, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬.

𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞, 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐞:

𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐬𝐨-𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐰 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐘𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐡𝐮𝐚, 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜?

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐬: 𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐨-𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 (“𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬” 𝐨𝐫 𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬) 𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞?

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡’𝐬 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐤 “𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬” 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 “𝐘𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐡𝐮𝐚” (𝐉𝐨𝐬𝐡𝐮𝐚) 𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐰 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 “𝐘𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐡𝐮𝐚”, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐬: “𝐘𝐚𝐡𝐰𝐞𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧” 𝐨𝐫 “𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐬𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐬”.

𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡’𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐢𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐡 𝐚 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 “𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧”, 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐬 “𝐘𝐮𝐬𝐡𝐚ʿ 𝐢𝐛𝐧 𝐍𝐮𝐧” (𝐉𝐨𝐬𝐡𝐮𝐚 𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐮𝐧) 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐬, 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐡 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 “𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐫” 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 — 𝐚𝐥𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 “𝐥𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞” 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬, 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐧 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐧𝐨 𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 “𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬” 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐮𝐬 𝐚𝐝𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐛𝐲 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞.

𝐀𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 “𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬” 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐜 𝐜𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬, 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐡 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐄 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 “𝐄𝐬𝐚𝐮”, 𝐢𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 ʿ𝐀𝐲𝐧 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐝, 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 “𝐘𝐚𝐬𝐮̄ʿ” (“𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬”). 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲 𝐮𝐧𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐜 𝐨𝐫 𝐇𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐰 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬.

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐥-𝐌𝐚𝐬𝐢̄𝐡̣ (“𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐡”), 𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 “𝐄𝐬𝐚𝐮”. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞-𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 “𝐘𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐡𝐮𝐚”, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝.

𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐱𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐡 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 “𝐈𝐄𝐒𝐔”, 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 “𝐉” 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐩𝐡𝐚𝐛𝐞𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐲, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 “𝐈” 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 “𝐉”, 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 “𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮”, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 “𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬”. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐇𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐰, 𝐋𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧, 𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 “𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬” 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐧 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐡, 𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐚 𝐬𝐲𝐦𝐛𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐱𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

𝐈𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐬—𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐜 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐫—𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 “𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬” 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐰𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐥 𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭.

𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐚 𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐚 𝐬𝐲𝐦𝐛𝐨𝐥 𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝, 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐬, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲.

𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐲 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 “𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬” — 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞 — 𝐡𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐚 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

𝐈𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐱𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐲𝐦𝐛𝐨𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐜 𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 “ʿ𝐈̄𝐬𝐚̄” (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 — 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐝, 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬.

𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐬, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬 “𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬,” 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 — 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐲 — 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐝𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐲𝐦𝐛𝐨𝐥𝐬 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞, 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐢𝐧 “𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐫” 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 “𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐥𝐲-𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭” 𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐞.

𝐎 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡, 𝐈 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐲𝐞𝐝. 𝐎 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡, 𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬.

𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐁𝐞𝐬𝐭.

𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬:

Response to Christianity and Judaism

Paul the False Apostle of Satan

Response to Atheism

Miracles of The Glorious Holy Quran

Who Altered the Bible? The Blacklist of Those Accused of Tampering with the Bible

Quran confirms the Corruption of the Torah and Gospels

The Schizophrenia and Christian madness: A God creates his mother so that she may give birth to him

Evidence that the corruption of the New Testament had a profound impact on the corruption and distortion of the original doctrine preached by the Prophet Jesus, son of Mary

Fulfilling the Quranic Prophecy: Understanding the Jewish Defensive Warfare from Fortified Villages and Behind Walls Quran (59:14)

32 Christian scholars Backed up by 50 Christian cooperating denominations confesses King James Version has grave defects.

Christian Scholars refuting the status of the NT as an inspired scripture

Does The Quran (5:44), Quran (5:47), Quran (5:68) order Jews and Christians to judge according to current Torah and Gospel?

Does Quran (5:43) And Quran (5:47) Prove the Torah and Injeel Both Were Never Corrupted ?

Paul the False Apostle of Satan

The Lost Torah

Did the Quran confirm the Torah and Bible during Prophet Muhammed?

Hadith confirms the Corruption of the Torah and Gospels

Why did the GOD of Islam allow for the “original” Bible to get corrupted or lost?

Does the Quran Really Confirm the Bible is unchanged?

Refuting The Argument Regarding Allah’s Words Do Not Change -Quran (6:115)

Does Islam affirm the authenticity of the current Bible?

Bewitchment of the Prophet

Posted onDecember 11, 2022July 8, 2025AuthorMohamad Mostafa Nassar

𝐁𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭

Mohamad Mostafa Nassar
Twitter:@NassarMohamadMR

𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐒𝐚𝐡𝐢𝐡, 𝐀𝐥-𝐁𝐮𝐤𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐢 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 `𝐀’𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐡 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝, “𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥 𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦.”

𝐒𝐮𝐟𝐲𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝, “𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐜 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞.”

𝐒𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝,

𝐎 `𝐀’𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐡! 𝐃𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐈 𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐇𝐢𝐦.

𝐓𝐰𝐨 𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐬𝐚𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐦𝐲 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐚𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐦𝐲 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐭.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐲 𝐦𝐲 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐧𝐞, `𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐧’

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝, `𝐇𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝.’

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝, `𝐖𝐡𝐨 𝐛𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐦’

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝, 𝐋𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐝 𝐛𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐬𝐚𝐦. 𝐇𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐮 𝐙𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐲𝐪 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐉𝐞𝐰𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐡𝐲𝐩𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞.’

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐝, `𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 (𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐡𝐢𝐦)’

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝, `𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛.’

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐝, `𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 (𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛)’

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝, `𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐥𝐦 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐚 𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐤 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐃𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐰𝐚𝐧.’

`𝐀’𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐡 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝, “𝐒𝐨 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐭 (𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐫).

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝,

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈 𝐬𝐚𝐰. 𝐈𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐟 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐚 𝐬𝐨𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐥𝐦 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐬.

𝐒𝐨 𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 (𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥). 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐈 (𝐀’𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐡) 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝,𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜’

𝐇𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝, (𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈 𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝 (𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐨𝐟) 𝐰𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐝𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞.)”

𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞: 𝐓𝐚𝐟𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐫 𝐈𝐛𝐧 𝐊𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐫, 𝐒𝐨𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐡 𝐀𝐧-𝐍𝐚𝐚𝐬 – 𝐃𝐚𝐫-𝐮𝐬-𝐒𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬

𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝?

𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧:

𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠: 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚̂𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝. 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐬?

𝐊𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐬 (𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐃𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩) 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧: 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐧𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐚 𝐛𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐧. 𝐏𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞, 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬!

𝐀𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫:

𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐇𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐡, 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐥-𝐌𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐡. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲, 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡’𝐬 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐟𝐞𝐥𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐝.

𝐀𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞, 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐉𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐋𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐝 𝐢𝐛𝐧 𝐀𝐥-𝐀`𝐬𝐚𝐦 𝐛𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐛𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭’𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐛. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐞. 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐜, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞.

𝐇𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐛𝐲 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 (𝐄𝐱𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐇𝐞). 𝐇𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬. `𝐀𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐡 (𝐦𝐚𝐲 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐛𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐡𝐞𝐫) 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝: 𝐎𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐞

𝐈𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐉𝐢𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐥 (𝐆𝐚𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐥) (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐚 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐥-𝐀𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐫 (𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐞𝐥𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬, 𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐡 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭). 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐢𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐲 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡’𝐬 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐞.

𝐈𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 (𝐄𝐱𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐇𝐞) 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐡𝐬, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐀𝐥-𝐌𝐮`𝐚𝐰𝐰𝐢𝐝𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐲𝐧 (𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐡𝐬 𝐀𝐥-𝐅𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐪 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐀𝐥-𝐍𝐚𝐬). 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦, 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝.

𝐏𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐡𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝: 𝐍𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐡𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭. 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 (𝐆𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐄𝐱𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐇𝐞) 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞.

𝐋𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐬, 𝐌𝐮𝐡𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐝 (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐬𝐮𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐧. 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞, 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐔𝐡𝐮𝐝, 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐦𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬, 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐥𝐢𝐩 𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐭𝐡 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐧. 𝐇𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐟𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐩𝐢𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐧𝐞𝐭 𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐢𝐧 𝐌𝐚𝐤𝐤𝐚𝐡.

𝐇𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐦. 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 (𝐄𝐱𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐇𝐞) 𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐮𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬.

𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐲𝐚𝐡 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐬: (𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚̂𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝…), 𝐢𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 (𝐄𝐱𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐇𝐞) 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬’ 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦.

𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞: 𝐅𝐚𝐭𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐛𝐧 𝐁𝐚𝐚𝐳

𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐁𝐞𝐬𝐭.

𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬:

The Blasphemous Corruption of the Bible: Jesus Accused of Madness and Possession in Mark 3:20–21

On the Physical Experiences of the Prophet (PBUH) at the time of Revelation

How did the Prophet receive revelation? What was the state of the Prophet like in the face of the heaviness of revelation?

Lengthy fabricated hadith about the death of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) Al-Mu’Jam Al-Kabir Tabarani (3/85)

Refuting The Rubbish About The Death Of Our Holy Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) Quran (69:44-46)

Does this mean he was a false Apostle?

Response to Christianity Index

Lies and Myths about Islam REFUTTED Index

Clarification about the temporary impact of witchcraft on Prophet Muhammed peace be upon him.

Prophet Muhammed as a victim of a black magic and lies from non-Muslims

Was Prophet Muhammed Demon Possessed and Suicidal?

Is this the reason Iblis/Shaytan/Satan had authority over Mohammad to bewitched and deceive him?

Bewitchment of the Prophet

The story of magic against the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and its meaning

Response to the false claim that the Prophet was Affected by Black Magic!

What the Bible Say about Astrology, Divination, Spirit Mediums, Magic, Wizardry, and Necromancy

 God’s Testimony: The Divine Authorship of The Qur’an

 Did Prophet Muhammed Pass Away Due to Poisoning

Was Jesus Poisoned?

The Alleged Poisoning of Prophet Muhammed

The Miracle of the Poisoned Sheep that Prophet Muhammed ate.

Refutting the lie that Muhammad died because he was poisoned

Reconciling between the verse “Allah will protect you from the people” and the death of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him).

Prophet Muhammed and the General agonies of death

Did any of the Companions of the Prophet=Sahaabah drink the blood of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)?

Why God’s (Allah’s) Book Cannot Contain Error

Posted onNovember 8, 2021May 1, 2022AuthorMohamad Mostafa Nassar

Why God’s (Allah’s) Book Cannot Contain Error

Mohamad Mostafa Nassar
Twitter:@NassarMohamadMR

1. God Revealed It: – “ Those who disbelieve in the Reminder when it comes to them (are guilty), for indeed it is an Honorable Scripture. Falsehood cannot come at it from before it or behind it. (It is) a revelation from the Wise, the Owner of Praise”
[Qur’an 41:41-42]

“ Praise be to Allah* Who has revealed the Scripture unto His slave, and has not placed therein any crookedness(but has made it) straight”
[Qur’an 18:l-2].

“ Allah has (now) revealed the fairest of statements, a Scripture consistent”
[Qur’an 39:23]

2. God Preserves It: God has promised to always preserve His book. He says:

“ Surely We revealed the Reminder [the Qur’an and We verily are it’s Guardian]” [Qur’an 15:9].

The Qur’an contains no additions. It remains today – letter for letter – as it was revealed over 1400 years ago -nothing added, nothing taken away. Two of the original manuscripts of the Qur’an prepared 1400 years ago still exist today. one is in the Topkapi Sarav Museum in Istanbul, Turkey, and the other in Tashkent, Russia. Both of these are identical in content with the Qur’an available all over the world today.

3. You Can Examine It: God Says:

“ Will they not then consider the Qur’an with care? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much discrepancy”
[Qur’an 4:82]

Here God challenges people to find an error in the Qur’an. If it contains errors then it cannot be from God. If, on the other hand, it bad been the production of a human being it would definitely contain errors. A human writer 1400 years ago would have written on the basis of the level of knowledge of his or her day. And many of those ideas would turn out to be false later as humankind learns more, especially in the field of science. But the Qur’an is Remarkably free from error.

[*] Allah: name of the only God – used by Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews, and by Muslims of every language.

Allahu Akbar

The Scientific Miracles of the Qur’an

Atheism Refuted

Response to Christianity

Muslim Women in Science

Posted onNovember 7, 2021September 17, 2024AuthorMohamad Mostafa Nassar

𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐖𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞

Mohamad Mostafa Nassar
Twitter:@NassarMohamadMR

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦, 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞, 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐮𝐞 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐆𝐨𝐝’𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐛𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝. 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 𝐌𝐨𝐡𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐝 (𝐬𝐚𝐰𝐬), 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐤 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝. 𝐈𝐧 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞, 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐬 𝐨𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐮𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐔𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐂𝐎.

𝐘𝐞𝐭, 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐝𝐨 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐦 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚. 𝐈𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬, 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐦’𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐲𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐜 𝐟𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐨𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐬.

𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐨𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧, 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐮𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐨 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦. 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐧𝐨 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐚. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 (𝐬𝐚𝐰𝐬) 𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝: “𝐒𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 (𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞).” (𝐒𝐚𝐡𝐢𝐡 𝐁𝐮𝐤𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐢)

𝐃𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐖𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐚 𝐁𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐅𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞, 𝐊𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐌𝐨𝐡𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐕𝐈 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 “…𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫”, 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐔𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐂𝐎 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟎.

𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐥𝐝𝐬, 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬, 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐟𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐧’𝐬 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐲𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭. 𝐀 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐡𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐝𝐨𝐦-𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐬.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐢𝐱 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐡𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧, 𝐁𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐞𝐢 𝐃𝐚𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐦, 𝐊𝐲𝐫𝐠𝐲𝐳𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧, 𝐋𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐧, 𝐐𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐮𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐲. 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

𝐑𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐛 𝐄𝐦𝐚𝐧, 𝐚 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐁𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐌𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐒𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐉𝐞𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐮𝐞 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐥𝐝. 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐄𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞, 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫, 𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. “𝐌𝐲 𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐧, 𝐦𝐲 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐧, 𝐦𝐲 𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐲 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬…,” 𝐬𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐬.

𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲, 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐥𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐇𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫, 𝐢𝐧 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐝𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧’𝐬 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐝𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐧’𝐬 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐝𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲, 𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲, 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬.

𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝. 𝐀 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐝𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐥 𝐞𝐧𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞.

𝐈𝐧 𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐔𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐂𝐎 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭, 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐥 𝐞𝐧𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐥𝐨𝐰: 𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 (𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝟒𝟎%), 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐀𝐬𝐢𝐚 (𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝟔𝟎%), 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐀𝐬𝐢𝐚 (𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝟕𝟓%).

𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐛𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐨𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬, 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬. 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐞 𝐚 𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩.

𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐈𝐒 (𝐔𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐂𝐎 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬), 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐧𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭. 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐮𝐦-𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐥 𝐞𝐧𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝟗𝟎 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭. 𝐏𝐨𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲.

𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐭𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐲, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐬, “𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐨𝐫?” 𝐖𝐞𝐥𝐥, 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐧, 𝐩𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦. 𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧, 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐬, 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐨 𝐢𝐧 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬.

𝐎𝐛𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐄𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

𝐀𝐥𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐛𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐬, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐚𝐟𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐫𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐛𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐈𝐧 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐀𝐟𝐠𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐪, 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐥𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐔.𝐒. 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐬. 𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐣𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭.

𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞-𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐞𝐫-𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐞𝐭 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐟𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐬𝐦𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐫𝐚𝐳𝐳𝐥𝐞-𝐝𝐚𝐳𝐳𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐲 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐌𝐅 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞, 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭, 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐝-𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐛𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬’ 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐚 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐘𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐮𝐦.

𝐀 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐇𝐢𝐭-𝐌𝐚𝐧, 𝐉𝐨𝐡𝐧 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐬, 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐬. 𝐓. 𝐌𝐚𝐢𝐧, 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐀𝐦𝐲 𝐆𝐨𝐨𝐝𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐣𝐨𝐛 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐄𝐦𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬’ 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐛𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐫𝐲.

“𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐞, 𝐮𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝, 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐮𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐬𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐡𝐢𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐧. 𝐈 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭,” 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐬.

𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐈𝐧𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐲

𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬. 𝐒𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐠𝐚𝐩𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞, 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝟒𝟒% 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐒𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐳𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧, 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐚 (𝟒𝟑%), 𝐑𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚 (𝟑𝟕%), 𝐊𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐚 (𝟑𝟔%), 𝐁𝐡𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐧 (𝟑𝟒%), 𝐂𝐚𝐦𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐢𝐚 (𝟐𝟗%) 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐋𝐢𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐢𝐧 (𝟐𝟕%).

𝐎𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐢𝐧, 𝐢𝐧 𝐓𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐚, 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝟗𝟖% 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝟓% 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐌𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐮𝐩 𝟓𝟓% 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐋𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐧 (𝟓𝟒%), 𝐉𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐋𝐢𝐛𝐲𝐚 (𝟓𝟏%).

𝐁𝐚𝐡𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐲 𝟔%. 𝐈𝐟 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐚𝐡𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧.

𝐑𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧’𝐬 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐨𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐭 𝐮𝐩 𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐝𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐛𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐁𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐮𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐞 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐦.

𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐑𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 (𝐇𝐑𝐖), 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫. 𝐀 𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟒 𝐇𝐑𝐖 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬, “𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧’𝐬 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭, 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐜𝐲.”

𝐄𝐱𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐡 𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬

𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐨𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝.

𝐓𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐞, 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐥𝐝𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥, 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞. 𝐀𝐥𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐲 𝐧𝐨 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞.

𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐫 𝐒𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐫𝐚 𝐈𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦

𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐫 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐘𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐛𝐲 𝐔𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐂𝐎. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐝𝐫𝐮𝐠 𝐬𝐚𝐟𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐛𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐝𝐫𝐮𝐠 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡 𝐎𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐫 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐤𝐞𝐲 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞, 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 ‘𝟕𝟎𝐬, 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐒𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢 𝐀𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐚.

𝐒𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐞𝐧𝐚 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐡

𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐩 𝐨𝐧 𝐌𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐝𝐚, 𝐒𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐫𝐚 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐡, 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐠𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐦 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐠𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐭 𝐈𝐈𝐓 𝐃𝐞𝐥𝐡𝐢, 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚. 𝐇𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞 𝐚 “𝐆𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐎𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐫” 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐚 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐮𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐈𝐈𝐓 𝐃𝐞𝐥𝐡𝐢.

𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐫 𝐃𝐫. 𝐁𝐢𝐧𝐚 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐡𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐒𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐢

𝐃𝐫. 𝐒𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐢 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐬. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐢𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝟐𝟓𝟎 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐬.

𝐏𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐅𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨-𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐝 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐎𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐖𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐏𝐡.𝐃. 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐃.𝐒𝐜. 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐊𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐢, 𝐏𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧. 𝐒𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐊𝐡𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐦𝐢 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐲.

𝐇𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬. 𝐁𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭, 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚, 𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝟏𝟖𝟗𝟎’𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐞𝐭, 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐡𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐝’𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐫, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐥𝐝.

𝐀𝐥𝐬𝐨, 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐈𝐣𝐥𝐢𝐲𝐚, 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐛 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫, 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬. 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐈𝐬𝐡𝐢 𝐍𝐢𝐥𝐢

𝐒𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐀𝐥-𝐀𝐥𝐢𝐦 (𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠) 𝐛𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐩 𝐥𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐬. 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐩 𝐥𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐟𝐮𝐥.

“𝐈𝐪𝐫𝐚!” (𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝) 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡’𝐬 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐌𝐨𝐡𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐝 (𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦) 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲. 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐝, 𝐛𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞, 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐤 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧, 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐢𝐟𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐬. 𝐔𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐀𝐥-𝐇𝐚𝐚𝐝𝐢 (𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞), 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐡 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲.

𝐖𝐎𝐌𝐄𝐍 𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐃𝐔𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐒 𝐈𝐍 𝐒𝐂𝐈𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐄𝐍𝐆𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐍𝐆

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟐/𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟑 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫-𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 (𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬, 𝐩𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬, 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬, 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬)

𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 (𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐬, 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠) 𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐥𝐝𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞. (𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 “𝐆𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐄𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐃𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭” 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐔𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐂𝐎 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟓)

𝐖𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞

𝐁𝐚𝐡𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧                   𝟕𝟒%
𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐡              𝟐𝟒%
𝐁𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐞𝐢 𝐃𝐚𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐦     𝟒𝟗%
𝐊𝐲𝐫𝐠𝐲𝐳𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧              𝟔𝟒%
𝐋𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐧                  𝟒𝟕%
𝐐𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐫                     𝟕𝟏%
𝐓𝐮𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐲                    𝟒𝟒%

𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡…

𝐔.𝐒. 𝟒𝟑%
𝐉𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐧 𝟐𝟓%

𝐖𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠

𝐄𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚 𝟒%
𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐨 𝟐𝟓%

𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡…
𝐔.𝐒. 𝟏𝟗%
𝐉𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐧 𝟏𝟑%

𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐲 𝐄𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐡 𝐇𝐚𝐛𝐛𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐚 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐒𝐭. 𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥, 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐭𝐚, 𝐔𝐒

𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐁𝐞𝐬𝐭.

𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬:

The Scientific Miracles of the Qur’an

Atheism Refuted

Response to Christianity

Why a Scientist Believes in God

Posted onNovember 7, 2021May 1, 2022AuthorMohamad Mostafa Nassar

Why a Scientist Believes in God

Mohamad Mostafa Nassar
Twitter:@NassarMohamadMR

This article of Mr A. Cressy Morrison, former President of the New York Academy of Sciences, first appeared in the “Reader’s Digest” (January 1948); then on recommendation of Professor C. A. Coulson, F. R.S., Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, was republished in the “Reader’s Digest” November 1960 – It shows how science compels the scientists to admit to the essential need of a Supreme Creator.

We are still in the dawn of the scientific age and every increase of light reveals more brightly the handiwork of an intelligent Creator. In the 90 years since Darwin we have made stupendous discoveries; with a spirit of scientific humanity and of faith grounded in knowledge we are approaching even nearer to an awareness of God. For myself I count seven reasons for my faith.

First: By unwavering mathematical law we can prove that our universe was designed and executed by a great engineering Intelligence. Suppose you put ten coins, marked from one to ten, into your pocket and give them a good shuffle. Now try to take them out in sequence from one to ten, pulling back the coin each time and shaking them all again.

Mathematically we know that your chance of first drawing number one is one in ten; of drawing one and two in succession, one in 100; of drawing one, two and three in succession, one in a thousand, and so on; your chance of drawing them all,

from one to number ten in succession, would reach the unbelievable figure of one chance in ten thousand million. By the same reasoning, so many exacting conditions are necessary for life on earth that they could not possibly exist in proper relationship by chance.

The earth rotates on its axis at one thousand miles an hour; if it turned at one hundred miles an hour, our days and nights would be ten times as long as now, and the hot sun would then burn up our vegetation during each long day, while in the long night any surviving sprout would freeze. Again, the sun, source of our life, has a surface temperature of 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and our earth is, just far enough away so that this ‘eternal fire” warms us just enough and not too much!

If the sun gave off only one-half its present radiation, we would freeze, and if it gave half as much more, we would roast. The slant of the earth, tilted at an angle of 23 degrees, gives us our season; if it had not been so tilted, vapors from the ocean would move north and south, piling up for us continents of ice.

If our moon was, say, only 50 thousand miles away instead of its actual distance, our tides would be so enormous that twice a day all continents would be submerged; even the mountains would soon be eroded away.

If the crust of the earth had been only ten feet thicker, there would be no oxygen without which animal life must die. Had the ocean been a few feet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been absorbed and no vegetable life could exist.

Or if our atmosphere had been thinner, some of the meteors, now burned in space by the million every day would be striking all parts of the earth, starting fires everywhere. Because of these, and host of other examples, there is not one chance in millions that life on our planet is an accident.

Second: The resourcefulness of life to accomplish its purpose is a manifestation of all-pervading Intelligence. What life itself is no man has fathomed. It has neither weight nor dimensions, but it does have force; a growing root will crack a rock.

Life has conquered water, land and air, mastering the element, compelling them to dissolve and reform their combinations. Life, the sculptor, shapes all living things; an artist, it designs every leaf of every tree, and colours every flower. Life is a musician and has each bird to sing its love songs, the insects to call each other in the music of their multitudinous sounds.

Life is a sublime chemist, giving taste to fruits and spices, and perfume to the rose changing water and carbonic acid into sugar and wood and, in so doing, releasing oxygen that animals may have the breath of life.

Behold an almost invisible drop of protoplasm, transparent and jelly-like, capable of motion, drawing energy from the sun. This single cell, this transparent mist-like droplet, holds within itself the germ of life, and has the power to distribute this life to every living thing, great and small.

The powers of this droplet are greater than our vegetation and animals and people, for all life came from it. Nature did not create life; fire-blistered rocks and a salt less sea could not meet the necessary requirements. Who, then, has put it here?

Third: Animal wisdom speaks irresistibly of a good Creator who infused instinct into otherwise helpless little creatures. The young salmon spends years at sea, then comes back to his own river; and travels up the very side of the river into which flows The tributary where he was born. What brings him back so precisely?

If you transfer him to another tributary he will know at once that he is off his course and he will fight his way down and back to the main stream and then turn up against the current to finish his destiny more accurately.

Even more difficult to solve is the mystery of eels. These amazing creatures migrate at maturity from all ponds and rivers everywhere – those from Europe across thousands of miles of oceans – all bound for the same abysmal deeps near Bermuda.

There they breed and die. The little ones, with no apparent means of knowing anything except that they are in a wilderness of water nevertheless find their way back not only to the very shore from which their parent came but thence to the rivers, lakes or little ponds – so that each body of water is always populated with eels.

No American eel has ever been caught in Europe, no European eel in American waters. Nature has even delayed the maturity of the European eel by a year or more to make up for its longer journey. Where does the directing iruptilse originate?

A wasp will overpower a grasshopper, dig a hole in the earth, sting the grasshopper in exactly the right place so that he does not die but becomes unconscious and lives on as a form of preserved meat. Then the wasp will lay her eggs handily so that her children when they hatch can nibble without killing the insect on which they feed, to them dead meat would be fatal.

The mother then flies way and dies; she never sees her young. Surely the wasp must have done all this right the first time and every time, or else there would be no wasp. Such mysterious techniques cannot be explained by adaptation; they were bestowed.

Fourth: Man has something more than animal instinct – the power of reason. No other animal has ever left a record of its ability to count ten or even to understand the meaning of ten. Where instinct is like a single note of a flute, beautiful but limited, the human brain contains all the notes of all the instruments in the orchestra.

No need to belabour this fourth point; thanks to the human reason we can contemplate the possibility that we are what we are only because we have received a spark of Universal Intelligence.

Fifth: Provision for all living is revealed in phenomena which we know today but which Darwin did not know – such as the wonders of genes. So unspeakably tiny are these genes that, if all of them responsible for all living people in the world could be put in one place, there would be less than a thimbleful.

Yet these ultra- microscopic genes and their companions, the chromosomes, inhabit every living cell and are the absolute keys to all human, animal and vegetable characteristics. A thimble is a small place in which to put all the individual characteristics of two thousand million human beings. However; the facts are beyond question.

Well then, how do genes lock up all the normal heredity of a multitude of ancestors and preserve the psychology of each in such an infinitely small space? Here evolution really begins – at the cell, the entity which holds and carries genes. How a few million atoms, locked up as an ultra-microscopic gene, can absolutely rule all on earth is an example of profound cunning and provision that could emanate only from a Creative Intelligence – no other hypothesis will serve.

Sixth: By the economy of nature, we are forced to realize that only infinite wisdom could have foreseen and prepared with such astute husbandry. Many years ago a species of cactus was planted in Australia as a protective fence. Having no insect enemies in Australia the cactus soon began a prodigious growth; the alarming abundance persisted until the plants covered an area as long and wide as England, crowding inhabitants out of the towns and villages, and destroying their farms.

Seeking a defence, the entomologists scoured the world; finally they turned up an insect which exclusively feeds on cactus, and would eat nothing else. It would breed freely too; and it had no enemies in Australia. So animal soon conquered vegetable and today the cactus pest has retreated, and with it all but a small protective residue of the insects, enough to hold the cactus in check for ever. Such checks and balances have been universally provided. Why have not fast-breeding insects dominated the earth?

Because they have no lungs such as man possesses; they breathe through tubes. But when insects grow large, their tubes do not grow in ratio to the increasing size of the body. Hence there has never been an insect of great size; this limitation on growth has held them all in check. If this physical check had not been provided, man could not exist. Imagine meeting a hornet as big as a lion!

Seventh: The fact that man can conceive the idea of God is in itself a unique proof. The conception of god rises from a divine faculty of man, unshared with the rest of our world – the faculty we call imagination. By its power, man and man alone can find the evidence of things unseen. The vista that power opens up is unbounded; indeed, as man is perfected, imagination becomes a spiritual reality.

Atheism Refuted

The Scientific Miracles of the Qur’an

Response to Christianity

The Ability to see the signs of God

Posted onNovember 7, 2021February 3, 2024AuthorMohamad Mostafa Nassar

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝

Mohamad Mostafa Nassar
Twitter:@NassarMohamadMR

𝐒𝐚𝐲: “𝐏𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐆𝐨𝐝. 𝐇𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐒𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦. 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐝𝐨.” 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐧-𝐍𝐚𝐦𝐥 (𝟐𝟕:𝟗𝟑)

𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲’𝐬 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲, 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝, 𝐢𝐧 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥, 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐟𝐞𝐰 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧.

𝐒𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 “𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐞”. 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧 𝐚 𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐭 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐞𝐬.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐜 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐬, 𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫, 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐮𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧’𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐯𝐞. 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐡 𝐈𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐐𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧 (𝟏𝟒:𝟓𝟐) , 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬: “𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐇𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐚𝐲 𝐡𝐞𝐞𝐝.” 𝐈𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐬, 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧’𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫.

𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧, 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐲 𝐩𝐮𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬.

𝐌𝐚𝐧 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐢𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡. 𝐇𝐞 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭. 𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬, 𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬.

𝐁𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥, 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐬𝐲𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞, 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐢𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟, 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐚 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫. 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞, 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐲, 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐬𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧.

𝐀𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐧. 𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧, 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐮𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐞. 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧, 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐝’𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐢𝐬𝐝𝐨𝐦, 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧, 𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝’𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐫𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭, “𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐫𝐭, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟”. 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐡𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐲𝐬 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬.

𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧, 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐬. 𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧, 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 “𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐬”, 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 “𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐚𝐛𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡”.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝.

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬, 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐝, 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝; 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝… 𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐬, 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬, 𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐰 𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐇𝐢𝐦, 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐫.

𝐄𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐚 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬, 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬; 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐦, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫, 𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞, 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐲 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬. 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭. 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐬𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞.

𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐭𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐲, 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐩. 𝐀𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐩, 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐜𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐆𝐨𝐝.

𝐆𝐨𝐝’𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐧-𝐍𝐚𝐡𝐥:

𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐇𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐤𝐲. 𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐢𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐢𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐫𝐮𝐛𝐬 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐳𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐬. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐢𝐭 𝐇𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐬 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐰 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐮𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝. . 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭. 𝐇𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐬, 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐯𝐚𝐫𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬 𝐇𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐡. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐩𝐚𝐲 𝐡𝐞𝐞𝐝. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐇𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐚 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐡 𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐡 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐫.

𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐬 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐢𝐭 𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐤 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐲, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐬 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐦𝐚𝐲 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐬. 𝐇𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐬𝐨 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐲𝐨𝐮, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐬 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐬. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐬. 𝐈𝐬 𝐇𝐞 𝐖𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞? 𝐒𝐨 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐩𝐚𝐲 𝐡𝐞𝐞𝐝? (𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐧-𝐍𝐚𝐡𝐥: 𝟏𝟎-𝟏𝟕)

𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧, 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤, 𝐨𝐫 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬 𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐬 𝐚𝐬 “𝐞𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧”, “𝐜𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞”, 𝐨𝐫 “𝐚 𝐦𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞”.

𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐡, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐧𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐚𝐲, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐒𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞: 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐡: “𝐎𝐮𝐫 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝, 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐆𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐘𝐨𝐮! 𝐒𝐨 𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐮𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐞. (𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐥𝐢-‘𝐈𝐦𝐫𝐚𝐧: 𝟏𝟗𝟎-𝟏𝟗𝟏)

𝐀𝐬 𝐰𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐬, 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞, 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦, 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐆𝐨𝐝’𝐬 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬.

𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐡 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐁𝐞𝐬𝐭.

𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬:

Atheism Refuted

Response to Christianity

The Scientific Miracles of the Qur’an

Miracles of The Glorious Holy Quran

Islam Compass

Serving Islam until Almighty Allah is pleased with us permanently.

Search Results for: response to christianity

Surah 9:29 – Tabuk | Response To ‘Religion Of Peace’

𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐡 𝟗:𝟐𝟗 – 𝐓𝐚𝐛𝐮𝐤 | 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐨 ‘𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐎𝐟 𝐏𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞’

He states that the fact that they were called “Christians” and “Jews” and

Roberts then makes a more outlandish and deceptive claim:

“The Battle Of Tabuk

These are the sources that mention that Pro-Byzantine Ghassan tribe intended to attack. Sahih al-Bukhari reports:

Response to the misunderstanding surrounding the Sword Verse Quran (9:5)

𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐕𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧 (𝟗:𝟓)

𝐁𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞

𝐂𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐄𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧 𝐁𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐲𝐥𝐞

The Contradiction in the Threat of Death and the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Book of Genesis, and its Counterpart in the Justice of Allah, His Instruction, and His Acceptance of Adam’s Repentance in the Qur’an

𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧:

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐫’𝐚̄𝐧𝐢𝐜 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭:

𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐥𝐲: 𝐀 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 “𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭.”

𝐅𝐢𝐟𝐭𝐡: 𝐀 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

𝐒𝐢𝐱𝐭𝐡: 𝐄𝐱𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐕𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐬 (𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠)

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧

Is the Bible distorted?

𝐈𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝?

The False Jesus

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐞 𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬

Bewitchment of the Prophet

𝐁𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭

Why God’s (Allah’s) Book Cannot Contain Error

Why God’s (Allah’s) Book Cannot Contain Error

The Scientific Miracles of the Qur’an

Atheism Refuted

Response to Christianity

Muslim Women in Science

𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐖𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞

Why a Scientist Believes in God

Why a Scientist Believes in God

Atheism Refuted

The Scientific Miracles of the Qur’an

Response to Christianity

The Ability to see the signs of God

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝