Category Archives: Ramadan/Sawm/Fasting

Comparison: Scribes of The Qur’an vs Scribes of the New Testament (Part 2)

Last week we took a cursory look at the known scribes of the Qur’an, in comparison with the known scribes of the New Testament. This week, we’re going to venture a little deeper into understanding why the identity of the authors and scribes (amanuenses and copyists) is of concern to the modern reader. Unlike the Qur’an, the veracity of the New Testament is based on the claim that it is from eyewitnesses:

For almost seventeen hundred years, Christians regarded the four canonical Gospels as being, among other things, records of what actually happened. Divine inspiration seemed to guarantee historical veracity, as did the belief that the purported authors of those Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were either eyewitnesses or friends of eyewitnesses.[1]

It is therefore touted as a historical work, based on the witness of contemporaneous sources. However, both early sources and later sources agreed throughout Church history that the New Testament was ahistorical in many cases and as one Church Father would put it, based on “material falsehood”:

Even more clear-eyed was Origen, who in the third century anticipated modern criticism by candidly observing that at “many points” the four Gospels “do not agree.” He inferred that their truth cannot reside in “the material letter:” The Evangelists “sometimes altered things which, from the eye of history, occurred otherwise.” They could “speak of something thing that happened in one place as if it had happened in another, or of what happened at a certain time as if it had happened at another time,” and they introduced “into what was spoken in a certain way some changes of their own.” “The spiritual truth was often preserved, one might say, in the material falsehood.”[2]

The issue of scribes altering original works is not alien to the New Testament itself. A warning in Revelation 22, the last book of the Bible was placed there to very specifically warn scribes from altering the work, the author(s) of this work then, at the very least were aware of the fate that had befallen other Christian works of that time and prayed that this would not happen to their own:

“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.”[3]

For those who argue that this book was written early, this quote demonstrates that at the time it was written scribes were altering works at such a scale of worry that the author(s) had to invoke a curse and warn them from altering their own work! Commenting on this passage, Phillip Comfort states:

“Since writers in antiquity were well aware that their books could be changed by scribes in successive copies, they made these warnings. Undoubtedly, they knew that there would be unintentional mistakes, which come through the course of making manuscripts. What they were hoping to protect against was intentional alteration of the writing.”[4]

What kind of intentional changes do we find in the New Testament manuscript tradition?

“Those who study the text and the history of its transmission realize that most of the substantive changes were made in the interest of “improving” the text. Various scribes were motivated to make changes in the text for the sake of harmonizing Gospel accounts, eliminating difficult doctrinal statements, and/or adding accounts from oral tradition.”[5]

“Whereas readers do this gap-filling in their imaginations only, scribes sometimes took the liberty to fill the unwritten gaps with written words. In other words, some scribes went beyond just imagining how the gaps should be filled and actually filled them. The historical evidence shows that each scribe who made a text created a new written text. Although there are many factors that could have contributed to the making of this new text, one major factor is that the text constantly demands the reader to fill in the gaps. During the reading process, the reader must concretize the gaps by using his or her imagination to give substance to textual omission and/or indefiniteness. Since this substantiation is a subjective and creative act, the concretization will assume many variations for different readers.”[6]

“Metzger considered the early Western text to be the work of a reviser “who was obviously a meticulous and well-informed scholar, [who] eliminated seams and gaps and added historical, biographical, and geographical details. Apparently the reviser did his work at an early date, before the text of Acts had come to be generally regarded as a sacred text that must be preserved inviolate.”[7]

“More often than not, the editors of the UBS/NA text considered the Alexandrian text, as the shorter text, to have preserved the original wording in Acts. My view is that in nearly every instance where the D-text stands alone (against other witnesses—especially the Alexandrian), it is a case of the Western scribe functioning as a reviser who enhanced the text with redactional fillers. This reviser must have been a well-informed scholar, who had a penchant for adding historical, biographical, and geographical details (as noted by Metzger). More than anything, he was intent on filling in gaps in the narrative by adding circumstantial details. Furthermore, he shaped the text to favor the Gentiles over the Jews, to promote Paul’s apostolic mission, and to heighten the activity of the Holy Spirit in the work of the apostles.”[8]

In Uloom al Hadeeth or the Science of Hadeeth, criticism of a transmitter is necessary for validating or verifying the information they are transmitting. This type of criticism is known as Rijal al Hadeeth, in which the character of the transmitter is examined. One might wonder, how detailed is this science in Islam? The following text should clarify the extent to which our methodology goes in order to validate information on a transmitter:

“A man bore witness in the presence of `Umar ibn al-Khattaab -radiyallaahu `anhu, so `Umar said to him: “I do not know you, and it does not harm you that I do not know you, but bring someone who does know you.”

So a man said: ‘I know him, O Chief of the Believers.’
He said: “What do you know of him.”

He said: ‘Uprightness.’
He said: “Is he your closest neighbour; so that you know about his night and his day, and his comings and goings?”

He said: ‘No.’

He said: “So have you had (monetary) dealings with him involving dirhams and deenars, which will indicate his piety?”

He said: ‘No.’

He said: “Then has he been your companion upon a journey which could indicate to you his good character?”

He said: ‘No.’

He said: “Then you do not know him.”

Then he said to the man: “Bring me someone who knows you.”[9]

Such a detailed criticism of any transmitter (whether orally or textually) in early Christianity has never been done, nor had such a science been developed in the Christian tradition. Rather, the most critical methodology of verifying information in the Christian tradition has been one of assumption. Rather than critically examining the characters of scribes, and transmitters, it is assumed that the earliest witnesses would have corrected misinformation from being shared:

“The primary reason is that the writers (or their immediate successors) were alive at the time and therefore could challenge any significant, unauthorized alterations. As long as eyewitnesses such as John or Peter were alive, who would dare change any of the Gospel accounts in any significant manner? Any one among the Twelve could have testified against any falsification.”[10]

We’ve already seen just how unreliable the early scribes were, and now that we know that there was no methodology to verify early transmitting of information, how can we be certain that if we assume the disciples were around, that they would be able to correct and thus stop misinformation from spreading? We cannot be certain of this, in fact, this assumption is erroneous given that the very Gospels themselves which are alleged to have been written during the time of the 12 disciples can’t even get the origin of Jesus meeting some of his most important disciples correct! In the origin story of the disciple Phillip, Jesus meets Philip in the city of Bethsaida. This is anachronistic, as Bethsaida only became a city after the ministry of Jesus ended. Therefore when Jesus met Philip in Bethsaida, it was considered a village. The Gospel of Mark in 8:23 correctly identifies it as a village (Greek: kome), but John in 1:44 refers to it as a city (Greek: polis). Considering that three disciples, Philip, Andrew and Peter were from Bethsaida, then how is it possible that all three of them let such a minor detail in one of the twelve’s origin stories be incorrect?

So that’s a minor detail, what about the origin stories for both Peter and Andrew?

In Matthew 4:18, Jesus meets Peter and Andrew on the seashore while fishing with nets. At that time the poorer fishermen did not have boats and so they would cast nets from the shoreline and catch whatever they could have. Just three verses later in 21 – 22, Jesus meets James and John with their father, who unlike Peter and Andrew, have a boat and are mending their nets. So Jesus in 5 verses, meets four of his most prominent disciples. In Mark 1:16 – 20, he tells us the same story in Matthew, but with a big difference, the third man in the boat when Jesus meets James and John for the first time is a hired servant and not their father, thus showing their wealth in comparison with Peter and Andrew. He makes the distinction between their places in society more noticeable.

In Luke though, it’s a different story. Jesus when he first comes to Capernaum, goes to Peter’s house and cures his mother in law (Luke 4:38). Then later, he stumbles across Peter on the shore of the lake, but they have a boat and he finds Peter mending a net, not using it to fish, a different story from Matthew. Jesus then proceeds to embark on Peter’s boat, perform a miracle in the lake and it is then that James and John notices the miracle and joins Peter. Again, this contradicts both Matthew and Mark’s story in which Peter, Andrew and Jesus while walking on the shoreline, spots James and John, then they leave their boat and follow Jesus on the shore. Have you noticed Luke never mentions Andrew? That’s a problem because in John’s account, Andrew met Jesus when Jesus was at the River Jordan with John the Baptist. Then Andrew finds Peter and takes him to meet Jesus (John 1:39-42). Then they go to Galilee in the region of Bethsaida. No mention of meeting on a boat, by a boat, because of a boat, or because of fishing, a completely different narrative. Definitely no mention of either James or John, the sons of Zebedee.

All four Gospels, have contradictions, errors and in some cases, a completely different narrative regarding the origin of Jesus meeting four of his twelve disciples. As we read earlier, according to Christian scholarship, if the disciples were alive they would have corrected any falsification, as we have just seen, either the disciples were complicit in falsifying information or the Gospel stories as we currently possess them were not verified by the disciples themselves. In fact, the reason that we cannot critically assess the character of any of the early transmitters in Christianity, or its disciples is because we know so little about them. Take for example, the rock on which Jesus is alleged to have built his Church, the disciple Peter, the most important disciple. What do we know about Peter?

“It is one of the inscrutable ironies of Christianity’s humble beginnings that we know so little about Jesus of Nazareth’s leading disciple— the one identified in the Gospel of Matthew as the “rock” on whom Jesus would build his church, listed in later Christian tradition as Rome’s first bishop, and one of its two apostolic martyrs at the hands of Emperor Nero. But who was this man, and what happened to him? Any conventional quest for a “historical Peter” runs into the ground rather swiftly.”[11]

“Yet they remain remarkably vague or silent about many of the things we would like to know about this apostle’s origin, character, missionary career, and death. Why would these sources show such a lack of interest in the fate of such a prominent apostle? This can only leave the modern reader frustrated and mystified. The historical Peter himself left virtually nothing in writing, and even less of archaeological interest— whether in his native Galilee, in Jerusalem or Caesarea, in Antioch or Corinth.”[12]

“Among the numerous extant writings in his name, there are of course two short and remarkably different letters of uncertain date and origin in the NT. Beyond that, we have a bewildering range of apocryphal sources, styled as written by or about him, dating from the second through (at least) the sixth century. The authenticity of these documents remains contested among scholars of diverse critical presuppositions. On perusing the scholarly secondary literature, it seems hard to dispel the impression that the vast majority of leading specialists on both sides of the Atlantic now regard neither of the NT’s two Petrine letters as coming from Peter’s own pen.”[13]

It is amazing that Christians would like to tell us what the disciples believed about Jesus, but the reality is that they themselves do not know much, if anything about Peter. Moreso, not only do they know nothing about Peter, they have very little to tell us about the origins, or ends of any of the disciples. Therefore, when Christians claim that the New Testament is based on eyewitness testimony and that the New Testament is historically accurate, on what basis are they making these claims? The early Church had no methodology for verifying and validating information made about Jesus, the one theory Christian scholarship offered about the disciples correcting information did not stand up to scrutiny, historically we know nothing about the earliest witnesses, therefore by every criteria they claim to stand on, the New Testament fails every one of them.

In contrast to the disaster that is the Christian transmission of information, the sciences of Uloom al Hadeeth and Uloom al Qur’an, are far more detailed and critical of transmitters. More critical, than any methodology ever offered by the Christian tradition. It is often claimed that our hadeeth corpus is on par with the New Testament’s authenticity, but as demonstrated last week, this cannot be the case. Pursuant to this, if one of the sub-sciences of Uloom al Hadeeth, Rijal al Hadeeth, is more demanding and critical than any methodology ever used in Christian scholastic history to validate or verify the New Testament, then it stands to reason that our weakest narrations from the hadeeth corpus are more authentic, valid and historically viable than the entire New Testament.

and Allah knows best.


  1. Allison, Dale C., Jr.. The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (Kindle Locations 32-34). Kindle Edition.
  2. Allison, Dale C., Jr.. The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (Kindle Locations 42-46). Kindle Edition.
  3. Unknown. The Book of Revelation, 22:18-19. NIV 2011.
  4. Comfort, Phillip (2010-07-19). Encountering the Manuscripts (Kindle Locations 6833-6835). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.
  5. Comfort, Phillip (2010-07-19). Encountering the Manuscripts (Kindle Locations 6890-6892). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.
  6. Comfort, Phillip (2010-07-19). Encountering the Manuscripts (Kindle Locations 8023-8028). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.
  7. Comfort, Phillip (2010-07-19). Encountering the Manuscripts (Kindle Locations 8691-8694). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.
  8. Comfort, Phillip (2010-07-19). Encountering the Manuscripts (Kindle Locations 8702-8708). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.
  9. Reported by al-Bayhaqee and others, and it was declared to be ‘saheeh’ (authentic) by Ibnus-Sakan, and our Shaykh (Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee) agreed; and refer to ’al-Irwaa’ no. 2637. As recommended by the blog’s owner, Br. Omar.
  10. Comfort, Phillip (2010-07-19). Encountering the Manuscripts (Kindle Locations 6801-6803). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.
  11. Bockmuehl, Markus (2012-11-01). Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory: The New Testament Apostle in the Early Church (p. 3). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
  12. Bockmuehl, Markus (2012-11-01). Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory: The New Testament Apostle in the Early Church (p. 3). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
  13. Bockmuehl, Markus (2012-11-01). Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory: The New Testament Apostle in the Early Church (p. 4). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Ramadan: The Month of the Qur’an

The Qur’an is a book with which most people know about, but of which many are not intimated with. This month is perhaps the best month in which we can dedicate the time to learning and understanding the Qur’an. Learning about, and understanding Islam is necessary for every Muslim (fard al ‘ayn), and moreso for the Muslims amongst us who do da’wah and engage in apologetics (the intellectual defense of Islam). A good place to start in our study of Islam, is in the passages of the Qur’an. Islam’s scripture. To kick off your engaging with the Qur’an, I’ve assembled a list of links that I think would help both Muslims and non-Muslims understand the Qur’an:

I’ll update this list as the month of Ramadan progresses.

“كِتَابٌ أَنزَلْنَاهُ إِلَيْكَ لِتُخْرِجَ النَّاسَ مِنَ الظُّلُمَاتِ إِلَى النُّورِ بِإِذْنِ رَبِّهِمْ إِلَىٰ صِرَاطِ الْعَزِيزِ الْحَمِيدِ”

“[This is] a Book which We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], that you might bring mankind out of darknesses into the light by permission of their Lord – to the path of the Exalted in Might, the Praiseworthy.” – Qur’an 14:1.

and Allah knows best.

Our Ramadan Message – 2013

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Ramadan Mubarak to the Muslim community. Ramadan literally means in Arabic (رمضان), “the burning, scorching”, because it is the month in which our sins are burnt away, it is the month in which we withstand the burning desires of our hearts and stomachs to attain closeness (taqwa) with God (Allaah). Calling Christians has a simple yet beautiful Ramadan message, click here to read the post and do share our message with others.

Our Ramadan Message – 2013/ 1434

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Ramadan is the month of the Qur’aan. It is the month in which the Qur’aan was revealed to our Master, Muhammad (peace be upon him). It says, and I quote:

“The month of Ramadan in which was sent down the Qur’an – the guidance for mankind, the direction and the clear criteria (to judge between right and wrong); so whoever among you witnesses this month, must fast for the (whole) month; and whoever is sick or on a journey, may fast the same number in other days; Allah desires ease for you and does not desire hardship for you – so that you complete the count (of fasts), and glorify Allah’s greatness for having guided you, and so that you may be grateful.” – Qur’aan 2:185.

Yes, it is also the month of fasting (Siyaam, Sawm), but most persons seem to forget that it is a period in which we are called to read the Qur’aan for 8, 16, 20 rakaat, a month in which we are recommended to read the entire Qur’aan. In light of this, how many persons fast, perform the Sunnah of Taraweeh or read the Qur’aan? As Muslims, we face countless attacks against the Qur’aan by Christian missionaries who read it no less than you do, but spend enough time dedicated to misunderstanding it so that they can misinform you. It is therefore, the responsibility of each and every Muslim to not only read the Qur’aan, but it is also incumbent, if not obligatory (wajib) to understand it.

It is not difficult to dedicate a few minutes of reading the English translation after suhoor (sehri, morning meal before the fast). If you spend as little as five minutes, you’d have definitely read a few pages, and a few pages a day can lead you to reading the entire Qur’aan in just a matter of weeks. Just as fasting is prescribed for us, so is reading/ reciting the Qur’aan (27:92, 96:1). If we are Muslims who are sincere about our faith, we must dedicate time to reading and understanding the Qur’aan, we must spend time with the Words of our Lord. After all, it was sent as a guidance for us:

“This is the exalted Book (the Qur’an), in which there is no place for doubt; a guidance for the pious.” – Qur’aan 2:2.

In reading the Qur’aan, it is recommended to read it along with some commentary so that one can clarify matters he is unfamiliar with. For this I recommend using either Maar’iful Qur’aan or the Tafsir of Imam Ibn Kathir (‘alayhi rahma). If you do encounter some passage in which you would like further explanation, feel free to contact us and we’d pass your message on to qualified Islamic scholarship. As a da’ee (one who calls to/ invites to Islam), one of the major obstacles I have for myself witnessed, is the ignorance of the Muslim who has not read the Qur’aan. We cannot be true Muslims without reading the revelation of Allaah to us, for it is the foundation to understanding our faith and without it, we would surely be misguided.

We must not give opportunity to the Missionaries to misuse the Qur’aan upon unsuspecting Muslims. It is our duty to know the Qur’aan. In closing, our Ramadan message is simple, in the month of the Qur’aan – Read the Qur’aan.

If you live in Trinidad & Tobago, Lebanon, Algeria, the United Kingdom, Jordan or the United States and would like a free copy of the Qur’aan (English translation), contact us and we’ll organize sending you one as soon as possible.

The Purpose of Life

by Elisabeth Strout

As I read through Surah Al-Mu’minoun (Chapter of the Believers) in the Qur’an the other Saturday evening, and read for the hundredth time the promise of heaven to the believers and hell for the disbelievers, the following thoughts came to me, tumbling over themselves all in a rush.

As human beings, the single purpose of our existence is to worship our Creator. That’s it. The Muslim worldview could be said to consist entirely in this single ordinance. Every last thing about Islam revolves around it. When you take this concept, and start applying it to each aspect of Islam, each teaching of the Qur’an, spoken by God, and each teaching of His final prophet, everything falls quickly into place, and moves slowly into view as a comprehensive system which takes every aspect of life on earth, and fits it into our singular purpose, the worship of our Creator.

Yet in my discussions with Christians, I’ve often heard expressed the concern that with the Qur’an’s apparent over-emphasis on the horrors of hell and the sensual pleasures of heaven as the goal of the afterlife rather than God Himself, and with the description of sin as “merely” the failure to worship God (as opposed to the Christian view of sin as some evil force which, without outside redemption, holds us all in its grasp and doom us all to hell, believer or unbeliever, righteous or unrighteous, in its infinite offense against God), Islam is missing the mark. As Thabiti Anyabwile, an Evangelical pastor who flirted with the Nation of Islam (a black supremacist movement founded in 1930) during his college years, puts it in his book, The Gospel for Muslims, “Sin rests lightly on the Muslim conscience because Muslims… fail to see how it dishonors God” [1].

The implicit claim of this statement, is that Christians do understand how deeply sin dishonors God, perhaps because they, unlike us, have the brutal crucifixion to look to. If someone had to suffer such excruciating pain in order to deal with sin, then sin must be an awful thing. But I’d beg to differ. Christianity can’t have a more accurate understanding of sin, nor does the Qur’an’s emphasis on heaven and hell detract from its emphasis on the worship of God. And the reason for both is one and the same.

The Christian frame of reference for the gravity of sin lies in atonement by blood. In brief, sin is so horrible, that it demands eternal death [2], and can only be forgiven if blood is shed [3], and the only satisfactory blood is God’s own blood [4]. The reasoning seems to be that sin is infinitely offensive, and therefore requires infinite punishment – either by the infinite suffering of our finite selves (in hell), or the finite suffering of an infinite individual (Christ’s ostensible crucifixion).

The problem with this, beyond the absurdity of God Himself being punished for our sin, effectively stripping the word ‘justice’ entirely of any meaning, is that while it appears to make sin a very grave thing indeed – infinitely grave – by the same logic, we are finite and therefore cannot comprehend the infinity of our offense against God. So we’re right back where we started – unable to grasp the weight of sin, of not fulfilling the purpose of our existence.

The difference in the Islamic perspective, is that it gives a frame of reference that we can relate to – not the vicarious suffering of another that took place 2,000 years ago, but the very personal and future experiences of our own selves. It speaks of heaven and hell, not as our ultimate goals, but as our ultimate destinations. The vivid Qur’anic descriptions accompanying these destinations are not there to scare us or motivate us to worship, but to enable us, as physical, sentient beings, to grasp the weight of our actions.

The detail with which the fires of hell are recounted and ascribed to those who disbelieve and work evil, and the wonder with which the gardens of paradise are described and promised to those who believe in God and His messenger, and fulfill their salah and zakaah, are not meant to take the focus off God. Rather the pleasure of heaven speaks to our senses of the beauty of worshiping God, and the pain of hell speaks of the foulness of dishonoring Him.

Again, the distinction is clear: the outcomes assigned to our actions are the natural results of them, and therefore frames of reference, while the goal to which we aspire is our Creator and the unfathomable privilege of gazing upon His face. [5] Surah Al-Qiyamah, the chapter of the Resurrection, is a short and eloquent testimony to this, telling us “some faces that day will be brilliant, gazing at their Lord”. [6]

But God did not simply inform us of the purpose of our existence, and leave it up to us to figure out how to fulfill it. Islam provides a clear set of guidelines for doing so, starting with five pillars, and reiterating those constantly in the Qur’an, as the foundation of our life of worship.

The first, the ‘shahada’, or bearing witness that there is no deity but Allah, and that Muhammad is His messenger, set us apart intellectually from those who fail to accomplish the purpose of their life, by attributing divine attributes to other than God, or by attributing human attributes to Him (known as ‘shirk’), or by denying His existence outright (known as ‘kufr’). Even Thabiti Anyabwile recognizes this. Contradicting his earlier statement that Muslims fail to see how sin dishonors God, he ascertains that, “the highest blasphemy in Islam is… making partners with God. To the Muslim mind nothing could be more foul and dishonoring to God.” [7]

The four remaining pillars are equally important. Time, sleep, money, food, sex, and social status – these are fundamental needs and desires we have as human beings, and each pillar helps purify and re-focus them, so rather than becoming idols, they can be turned into acts of worship. ‘Salah’, the five daily ‘prayers’ at dawn, midday, mid-afternoon, evening, and night, and the second of the pillars, governs the time and the sleep we consider so precious, reminding us that they also belong to God. We are forgetful beings – the very word for mankind in Arabic comes from this root – and we need frequent reminding of our purpose. Salah is this constant reminder, refocus on the glory of God.

The three remaining pillars, ‘zakah’, ‘sawm’, and ‘hajj’, charity, fasting, and pilgrimage, govern our worldly desire for money and social status, and our earthly need for food and intimacy. Just like the call to prayer at dawn reminds that “salah is better than sleep”, zakah reminds us that God is more worthy of our desire than money, by enjoining on us generosity, giving from what God has provided us, to those who have less. Sawm reminds us He is more worthy of our desire than food or sex, by reining in those desires from sunrise to sunset during the month of Ramadan. And hajj reminds us that we are all equal before God, rich and poor, brown and white, king and servant, by bringing us all together in the same location, in the same dress, in the same language, in the same state of ihram, performing the same acts of worship, bowing shoulder to shoulder before our Creator.

These pillars are a daily, monthly, and yearly reminder that we are not the sum total of our physical needs and wants, our ultimate goal here is not to fulfill them. But Islam doesn’t stop there. Through the Qur’an, the final revelation of God, and through the example and teaching of Muhammad, His final prophet, Islam reaches out to all aspects of life, from waking up in the morning to going to bed at night, from giving birth to choosing a spouse to preparing a body for burial, from going to the bathroom to eating food, in health and sickness, and provides guidance, so that there is a right and a wrong way to do everything.

In this way, “Islam provides a means of turning each and every human act, no matter how insignificant or mundane it may seem, into an act of worship.” [8] In fact, any act, “consciously done for the pleasure of Allah alone and done according to the sunnah of the messenger of Allah, can turn into an act of worship and man’s whole life can enter completely into the service of Allah.” [9] Hence the vast and far-reaching body of regulations in Islam, are not an interminable list of arbitrary rules assigned by God merely to test us, but wise guidelines designed by Him that fulfill a purpose, and at the same time, make us more peaceful, successful, happier individuals.


[1] Anyabwile, Thabiti, The Gospel for Muslims, p. 45-46

[2] Romans 6:23

[3] Hebrews 9:22

[4] Romans 3:25

[5] Al-Munajjid, Sh. Muhammad,

[6] Qur’an 75:22-23

[7] Anyabwile, p. 27

[8] Philips, Dr. Bilal, The Fundamentals of Tawheed

[9] Ibid.