The Fifth Covenant with Jesus Christ

I. The Literal “Flesh and Blood” of the Last Supper

At the very beginning of his discourse (00:01), Abdullāh Hāshim Abā al-Ṣādiq declares:

Later, at 22:29–22:56 he reiterates:

He asserts that these words must be interpreted literally - that Jesus intended his disciples to physically consume his bodily fluids, even suggesting that such language is a coded reference to sexual seed.

Refutation with Qur’anic and Hadith Evidence: The Qur’an, however, presents a different perspective. In Surah Al-Ma’idah (5:112–115), the disciples request a sign in the form of a “table spread” from heaven:

  “[Remember] when the disciples said, ‘O Jesus, Son of Mary, can your Lord send down to us a table spread with food?’ He said, ‘Fear Allah, if you have faith.’ … But Allah will send down from the sky a table spread [with food]…” (Qur’an 5:112–115)

This passage clearly indicates that divine manifestations - such as the table spread - are intended as signs to strengthen faith rather than instructions for consuming a prophet's literal bodily fluids. Moreover, authentic hadith discourage extreme literalism. For example, in Sahih Muslim the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) advised:

Scholars like Ibn Kathir and Al-Tabari have consistently interpreted the language of “flesh and blood” as metaphorical, symbolizing spiritual nourishment and the covenant between God and humanity - not as a directive to ingest physical substances. Thus, Abdullāh Hāshim Abā al-Ṣādiq’s literal reading lacks support in both Qur’anic exegesis and the prophetic tradition.

II. Euphemisms and the Alleged Hidden Sexual Symbolism

Between 26:05 and 27:51, Abdullāh Hāshim Abā al-Ṣādiq argues that certain biblical euphemisms are in fact coded references to sexual organs. He claims:

Then at 31:11 he continues:

According to his interpretation, words like “flesh,” “blood,” and even “feet” are not to be taken in their ordinary sense but instead represent sexual or carnal elements - implying that Jesus’s words at the Last Supper encode a hidden, sexualized meaning.

Refutation with Linguistic and Scriptural Evidence: A careful review of the Biblical, Torah, and Qur’anic texts shows no evidence for this redefinition. In the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, terms such as “flesh” and “blood” are used in a straightforward, yet symbolically rich manner to denote life, sacrifice, and covenant. There is no mainstream exegetical support - in Jewish, Christian, or Islamic traditions - for interpreting these terms as references to semen or other sexual fluids.

For example, the Qur’an’s description of miracles emphasizes spiritual truth rather than any concealed sexual symbolism:

Likewise, classical commentators across traditions treat the language of covenant and sacrament as conveying spiritual regeneration and divine promise. The alleged euphemistic readings introduced by Abdullāh Hāshim Abā al-Ṣādiq are thus a distortion; they are not attested in the original languages or in any reliable tradition of exegesis.

III. The Series of Covenants and the “False Transfer” to Ishmael’s Descendants

Toward the later part of the video (59:35 - 1:00:12), he asserts:

Here, he contends that after the crucifixion of Jesus, the true covenant - originally established with the descendants of Isaac - was wrongly transferred to Ishmael’s lineage.

Refutation with Biblical and Torah Testimony: The Torah is unequivocal on the subject. In Genesis 17:19–21, God clearly differentiates between Abraham’s two sons:

This passage makes it clear that while Ishmael is indeed blessed, the everlasting covenant - the promise that all nations would be blessed through Abraham’s seed - is specifically established with Isaac. The New Testament reinforces this distinction. In Galatians 4:21–31, Paul contrasts the children of the promise (Isaac) with the children of the flesh (Ishmael), emphasizing that the true inheritance of God’s promise is not based on physical lineage alone but on divine promise and faith.

Moreover, the Qur’an honors both sons of Abraham without endorsing any notion of a covenantal transfer. Verses in Surah Al-Baqarah (2:125–129) and Surah Maryam (19:54–55) emphasize their blessed status, presenting the Abrahamic legacy as a continuous call to monotheism that culminates in the final revelation. Abdullāh Hāshim Abā al-Ṣādiq’s claim of a “false transfer” thus contradicts both the Biblical/Torah narrative and the Islamic understanding of the covenant.

IV. Misinterpretation of Prophetic Purity and Miraculous Acts

Another major theme in the transcript is the suggestion that bodily fluids - such as Jesus’s saliva or even the urine of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ - are imbued with divine purity and supernatural power. For example, he states (55:42–56:38):

Refutation with Hadith and Qur’anic Principles: There is no authentic hadith or Qur'anic passage that supports the notion that a prophet's bodily fluids carry inherent purificatory properties. The Qur’an makes it clear that true purity is spiritual rather than physical. For instance, it states:

Authentic hadith literature, such as those found in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, do not endorse any veneration or use of bodily fluids as agents of purification. Rather, the miracles of the prophets are understood as signs that affirm their divine mission and serve to guide believers toward moral and spiritual rectitude. The idea that consuming or venerating such substances could confer divine light is a distortion of the intended message. Classical scholars have always stressed that the miraculous signs of the prophets are meant to inspire faith and devotion - not to serve as a basis for ritualistic or carnal practices.

V. Synthesis and Concluding Reflections

Abdullāh Hāshim Abā al-Ṣādiq’s transcript is replete with provocative reinterpretations that, taken at face value, radically depart from the established teachings found in the Qur’an, authentic hadith, and the Biblical/Torah narratives. His literal reading of Jesus’s proclamation at the Last Supper (as quoted at 00:01 and 22:29–22:56) as a directive to consume physical “flesh and blood” is contradicted by the Qur’anic account of the miraculous table spread (Qur’an 5:112–115) and by centuries of allegorical interpretation upheld by scholars. His claims that common biblical terms such as “flesh,” “blood,” and “feet” are euphemisms for sexual organs (26:05–27:51 and 55:42–56:38) are not supported by linguistic or exegetical evidence from any major tradition. Finally, his assertion that the covenant was transferred to Ishmael’s descendants (59:35–1:00:12) is clearly refuted by the Torah (Genesis 17:19–21) and reinforced in the New Testament (Galatians 4:21–31), as well as by the Qur’anic perspective that sees the Abrahamic legacy as an unbroken call to monotheism.

In sum, when we examine these claims alongside primary sources - the Qur’an’s clear narrative, authentic hadith, and the Biblical/Torah texts - it becomes evident that the interpretations offered by Abdullāh Hāshim Abā al-Ṣādiq are based on a selective reading and misinterpretation of sacred language. The intended messages of divine mercy, spiritual nourishment, and covenantal promise remain intact in the established traditions, leaving no room for the literal, sexualized reinterpretations he proposes.