17.3. 3rd Covenant with Abraham: Nimrod's Fire, Circumcision, and Marital Law

1. Nimrod's Fire and the Miracle of Abraham

Abdullāh Hāshim Abā al-Ṣādiq claims on the Youtube Video Timestamp: (00:00–00:39):

Refutation and Scholarly Evidence: The Qur'an explicitly states that the fire was commanded by Allah to become cool and peaceful for Ibrahim (peace be upon him):

Ibn Kathir, in his Tafsir (Exegesis), explains that this verse demonstrates Allah’s absolute power over nature and His protection of the righteous. He writes:

The additional claim that the fire rejected Cain’s offering is unfounded in Islamic sources. The Qur'an narrates the story of Cain and Abel in Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:27) but does not mention fire in this context. As Shaykh Sa’d al-Ta’i comments in his work Fiqh al-Qasas al-Qur’ani:

Thus, the attempt to connect the fire of Nimrod with the story of Cain’s offering is speculative and has no scholarly basis.

Biblical Evidence: The story of Abraham (Ibrahim) being thrown into the fire by Nimrod does not appear in the Bible. However, it is found in Midrashic Jewish traditions. In the Bible, Nimrod is described as a powerful figure, but his connection to Abraham or a fire incident is not mentioned:

This omission weakens the claim, as the Bible and Torah do not corroborate this specific story.

Torah Evidence: The Torah mentions offerings by Cain and Abel but makes no reference to fire rejecting Cain’s offering:

The Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 38:13) does mention Abraham being thrown into the fire by Nimrod, but it does not connect this to Cain’s offering. The link between Cain and Nimrod’s fire is speculative and not supported by either the Torah or Midrashic texts.

2. The Canaanites as Descendants of Cain

Abdullāh Hāshim Abā al-Ṣādiq claims on the Youtube Video Timestamp: (03:49–04:59):

Refutation and Scholarly Evidence: The Qur'an states that the flood during Prophet Nuh’s (Noah’s) time was a punishment for widespread disbelief, not for any specific lineage:

Ibn Kathir, in his Qasas al-Anbiya’ (Stories of the Prophets), clarifies:

“The flood was a punishment for those who rejected the message of Nuh, not a targeted cleansing of any specific lineage. All humans after the flood are descendants of the righteous followers of Nuh.”

The claim about the Canaanites being "descendants of Cain" contradicts Islamic teachings. Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazali in Fiqh al-Seerah emphasizes:

This further invalidates the claim that the flood targeted a particular lineage.

Biblical Evidence: The Bible does not describe the Canaanites as descendants of Cain. Instead, it lists them as descendants of Ham, Noah’s son:

The Bible explicitly states that the flood wiped out everyone except Noah and his family, indicating no separate survival of Cain’s lineage:

Torah Evidence: The Torah does not associate Cain with the Canaanites. In Jewish tradition, the descendants of Cain are considered extinct following the flood. The claim that the Canaanites were descendants of Cain contradicts the genealogical accounts in Parashat Noach (Genesis 10:1–32), which clearly outlines Noah’s lineage.

3. Circumcision as Purification from Cain’s Lineage

Abdullāh Hāshim Abā al-Ṣādiq claims on the Youtube Video Timestamp: (11:58–13:10) Statement: "Circumcision was a purification for the family of Abraham... to purify the seed of Adam through Abraham from these impure individuals, the Canaanites."

Refutation and Scholarly Evidence: Circumcision is described in Islamic teachings as a practice of fitrah (natural disposition) initiated by Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him). It symbolizes cleanliness and adherence to Allah’s commands, not the purification of lineage.

Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen, in his Sharh Riyadh al-Saliheen, explains:

The Qur'an does not associate circumcision with "purification from Cain’s lineage." Instead, it emphasizes individual accountability:

The claim that circumcision separates the lineage of Abraham from Cain is an unfounded addition to Islamic doctrine.

Biblical Evidence: Circumcision is introduced in the Bible as a covenant between God and Abraham and his descendants:

It is portrayed as a sign of the covenant, not as a purification from any lineage. The idea of purification from Cain’s descendants is not present in the Bible.

Torah Evidence: The Torah affirms circumcision as a sign of the covenant (brit milah) between God and Abraham:

Rabbinic literature (Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 133a) highlights the spiritual significance of circumcision as aligning oneself with God’s commandments but does not mention lineage purification.

4. Jesus Referring to Canaanites as "Dogs"

Abdullāh Hāshim Abā al-Ṣādiq claims on the Youtube Video Timestamp: (14:58–16:50) Statement: "Jesus says that a dog is better than an uncircumcised human being... Jesus was saying that an animal is cleaner than the impure Canaanites."

Refutation and Scholarly Evidence: The Qur'an portrays Prophet Isa (Jesus, peace be upon him) as a messenger of Allah who demonstrated mercy and compassion:

Ibn Kathir, in Tafsir al-Qur'an al-Azim, elaborates on the dignity and respect that Isa (peace be upon him) showed towards all of creation. The claim that Isa compared individuals to "dogs" directly contradicts his character as described in the Qur'an and hadith.

Dr. Yasir Qadhi, in his lectures on Isa, emphasizes:

“The Qur'an rejects any portrayal of the prophets as harsh or derogatory. Isa, like all prophets, is a paragon of kindness and respect.”

This claim is likely derived from distorted biblical narratives and has no basis in Islamic theology.

Biblical Evidence: This claim likely originates from the New Testament account of Jesus and the Canaanite woman:

In context, Jesus is testing the woman’s faith, not condemning her lineage. The woman’s response, "Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table" (Matthew 15:27), demonstrates humility and faith, which Jesus praises. There is no connection to circumcision or an assertion that Canaanites are inherently impure.

Torah Evidence: The Torah does not describe Canaanites as "dogs" or inherently impure. While the Torah outlines prohibitions against idolatry practiced by the Canaanites, it emphasizes their actions rather than their lineage as the basis for divine punishment (Leviticus 18:24–30).

5. Incest Among Prophets or Their Families

Abdullāh Hāshim Abā al-Ṣādiq claims on the Youtube Video Timestamp: (18:47–20:08) Statement: "Sarah was the half-sister of Abraham... marital relations between fathers and daughters, and between siblings, were not prevented at that time."

Refutation and Scholarly Evidence: Islamic tradition refutes any notion of immoral relationships among prophets. The Qur'an honors Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him) and his family:

Al-Qurtubi, in his Tafsir al-Jami’ li Ahkam al-Qur'an, asserts:

The idea of incestuous relationships stems from non-Islamic sources and is rejected by Islamic scholarship. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, in his work Majmu’ al-Fatawa, states:

Biblical Evidence: The Bible does describe Sarah as Abraham’s half-sister:

However, by the time of Moses, such relationships were explicitly prohibited:

This indicates that marital laws developed over time. The Bible does not sanction relationships between fathers and daughters, making the claim of incest unfounded.

Torah Evidence: The Torah confirms Sarah’s relationship to Abraham in Parashat Lekh Lekha (Genesis 20:12). Rabbinic scholars, such as Rashi, clarify that Sarah’s marriage to Abraham was permissible at that time as laws prohibiting such unions had not yet been revealed.

6. Lot’s Daughters Committing Incest

Abdullāh Hāshim Abā al-Ṣādiq claims on the Youtube Video Timestamp: (19:18–20:08) Statement: "Lot's daughters engaged with their father in an act to preserve his seed."

Refutation and Scholarly Evidence: The Qur'an presents Prophet Lut (peace be upon him) as a righteous servant of Allah who called his people to morality. There is no mention of such claims against his daughters:

Al-Tabari, in his Tafsir, explains:

Sheikh Muhammad Asad, in The Message of the Qur'an, highlights:

Biblical Evidence: The Bible records the story of Lot’s daughters in Genesis:

This account is descriptive, not prescriptive, and highlights the moral decline of Lot’s daughters. The Bible does not condone their actions, nor does it suggest that prophets like Abraham or their families engaged in similar behavior.

Torah Evidence: The Torah narrates this story in Parashat Vayera (Genesis 19:30–38). Rabbinic interpretations, such as those in the Midrash Rabbah, view the daughters’ actions as misguided and emphasize that Lot himself was unaware. The Torah never portrays such actions as normative or permissible.

Conclusion

Abdullāh Hāshim Abā al-Ṣādiq's assertions in the video "3rd Covenant with Abraham: Nimrod's Fire, Circumcision, and Marital Law" are not supported by authentic Islamic teachings, biblical scripture, or the Torah. His claims are a mixture of speculative interpretations, distortions of religious texts, and unfounded narratives that deviate significantly from the established traditions of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.

Key Points of Refutation

1. Nimrod’s Fire and Abraham’s Miracle

Islamic Perspective: The Qur'an mentions the miracle of Abraham surviving the fire (Qur'an 21:68–69) but does not connect this to Cain’s offering or fire refusing offerings. Scholarly works like those of Ibn Kathir and the Midrash only focus on Allah’s intervention and do not validate speculative additions.

Biblical and Torah Perspective: The Bible and Torah do not narrate the incident of Abraham and Nimrod’s fire. The story of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:4–5) mentions rejected offerings but makes no connection to fire or to Abraham.

2. Canaanites as Descendants of Cain

Islamic Perspective: The Qur'an explains the flood of Nuh (Noah, peace be upon him) as a punishment for widespread corruption, not for a specific lineage. Claims about the "descendants of Cain" are absent from Islamic tradition and contradicted by Qur'anic accounts (Qur'an 7:59–64; 54:11–13).

Biblical and Torah Perspective: The Bible and Torah identify the Canaanites as descendants of Ham, Noah’s son (Genesis 10:15–18). The flood narrative in Genesis (7:22–23) describes the destruction of all except Noah’s family, ruling out the survival of Cain’s lineage.

3. Circumcision as Purification from Cain’s Lineage

Islamic Perspective: Circumcision is a Sunnah of Prophet Ibrahim, signifying adherence to fitrah (natural disposition) and obedience to Allah, without any association with "purifying" lineage (Sahih al-Bukhari 5891; Sahih Muslim 257). Scholars like Ibn Uthaymeen emphasize its spiritual and hygienic significance.

Biblical and Torah Perspective: Circumcision is presented in Genesis 17:10–11 as a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham. Neither the Bible nor the Torah link it to purification from Cain’s lineage.

4. Jesus Referring to Canaanites as "Dogs"

Islamic Perspective: The Qur'an presents Isa (Jesus, peace be upon him) as a compassionate prophet who upheld dignity and justice (Qur'an 2:87; 5:46). Claims that Isa insulted or degraded Canaanites have no basis in Islamic theology.

Biblical and Torah Perspective: The Gospel account in Matthew 15:26–28 describes Jesus testing the Canaanite woman’s faith but does not imply inherent impurity. The Torah condemns idolatrous practices but does not label the Canaanites as "dogs" (Leviticus 18:24–30).

5. Incest Among Prophets or Their Families

Islamic Perspective: Prophets and their families are described as paragons of virtue and moral purity (Qur'an 3:33). Claims of incest involving Abraham or other prophets are rejected as slanderous and inconsistent with Islamic teachings.

Biblical and Torah Perspective: While Genesis 20:12 mentions Sarah as Abraham’s half-sister, later laws (Leviticus 18:9) prohibit such unions. The story of Lot’s daughters (Genesis 19:30–38) is descriptive, not prescriptive, and portrays their actions as misguided, not exemplary.

General Observations

Distortion of Islamic Teachings: Abdullāh Hāshim Abā al-Ṣādiq introduces speculative interpretations that lack basis in the Qur'an, authentic hadith, or Islamic scholarship. The Qur'an emphasizes individual accountability (Qur'an 35:18) and rejects notions of inherited impurity.

Misuse of Biblical and Torah Narratives: The claims often rely on misinterpretations or extrapolations of biblical and Torah texts, with no support from mainstream Judeo-Christian traditions. For example, the survival of Cain’s lineage and the derogatory portrayal of Canaanites are not supported by the Bible or Torah.

Reliance on Apocryphal and Unverified Sources: Some narratives appear to draw from apocryphal texts or oral traditions that lack credibility in established religious frameworks. For example, the Gospel of Barnabas, referenced in the video, is not recognized as an authoritative scripture in Christianity or Islam.

Scholarly Consensus

Prominent Islamic scholars, such as Ibn Kathir, Al-Qurtubi, and Ibn Uthaymeen, emphasize:

The moral and spiritual integrity of prophets and their families.

The rejection of inherited impurity or divine punishment targeting specific lineages.

The importance of adhering to the Qur'an and authentic hadith for understanding Islamic teachings.

Similarly, Judeo-Christian scholarship highlights:

The Bible’s emphasis on moral accountability over lineage.

The descriptive, not prescriptive, nature of problematic stories (e.g., Lot’s daughters).

Conclusion

The claims made by Abdullāh Hāshim Abā al-Ṣādiq lack authenticity, misrepresent Islamic and biblical teachings, and distort historical and theological narratives. They contradict the established principles of the Qur'an, the Bible, and the Torah, as well as the interpretations of respected scholars. Believers are urged to rely on authentic sources and recognized scholars to understand the sacred texts and avoid speculative or misleading interpretations.