Sura’ al-Fatihah and the Missionary’s “Straight Path”

As-salaamu ala’ man ittaba’a al-huda;

Some Christian missionaries have the inherent fantasy that Sura’ al-Fatihah (the first Sura’ of the Qur’an) somehow supports their false pagan doctrine of the Trinity.

sura-fatiha Sura' al-Fatihah and the Missionary's "Straight Path"

The translation of this Sura is as follows:

1) In the Name of Allaah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
2) All the praises and thanks are for Allaah the Lord of the Universe.
3) The Most Beneficent, The Most Merciful.
4) Master of the Day of Recompense.
5) You Alone we worship, and You Alone we ask for help.
6) Guide us to the Straight Path.
7) The Path of those on whom You have bestowed your grace, not the Path of those who earned your Anger, nor of those that went astray.

The missionaries, having an inherent disease in their hearts, are unable to appreciate the Pure Monotheism which the Sura expounds. They will first cite the whole ayaat (keep in mind that their main contention is with Qur’an, 1:6 — “Guide us to the straight path“) and then twist this interpretation to suit their false doctrine. t seems to be a common tactic which is not alien to Christian missionary propaganda, as befitting the tactics of their Satanic apostle from Tarsus. Let us now deal with this latest polemic in the following paragraphs, insha’allah.

As one Christian polemicist had claimed:

    This is the daiy [sic] prayer recited by the Muslim every time they pray. Everyday, they are asking God to show them the straight way – this wil go on and on the rest of their lives! As I read the Al-Qur’an myself, I then found the Straight Way that they are looking for.

Then the Christian missionary “conveniently” proceeds to selectively quote verses related to Jesus alaihissalam and the imagined “straight way”. And of course, that “Straight Way” the Christian has in mind is then transposed to the verse in John 14:6.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

By this erroneous “transposition”, their claim is two-fold:

(1) The Qur’an speaks of a “straight path”.
(2) Jesus (and implicitly, Christianity and Christian doctrines) is the “straight path”.

With such fantasies that these Christians have, it is amazing that their stupidity always precedes their profound ignorance.

It should of course be noted that while the Qur’an does speak favourably of Jesus (P) and the message that he had preached, it is always depicted that Jesus (P) is a Prophet of God and His servant. It is thus quite convenient for the missionary to leave out verses which stressed upon Jesus’ (P) humanity in the Qur’an, for example:

“Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His Signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!”1

More of such verses on Jesus (P) can be found here. It is thus clear that the missionary had selectively done a “pick and choose” on the verses that the missionary “feels” support their Trinitarian doctrine. However, as the evidence dictates, this is far from the truth.

Here is a full commentary of Sura al-Fatihah from Ibn Kathir, specifically Qur’an, 1:6 — Ihdeena siraatul mustaqeem (“Guide us on the straight path”).

On this passage, Ibn Kathir says:

The saying of the Exalted, ‘You Alone we ask for help’: meaning that we do not seek aid from anyone but You because the command/affair in it’s totality is under Your control Alone, no one else has even an atoms weight of control over it. And in this statement’s following His saying, ‘You Alone we worship’ lies an indication that it is not permissible to put our trust in anyone except the One that deserves worship because no one else has control over the command/affair. This meaning which is indicated here is clearly explained in other verses, like His sayings,

‘So worship Him and put your trust in Him’ (12:123)

‘But if they turn away, say: Allaah is sufficient for me, none has the right to be worshipped but Him, in Him I put my trust’ (9:129)

‘The Lord of the East and the West, none deserves to be worshipped but Him, so take Him as the Disposer of your affairs’ (73:9)

‘Say: He is the Most Beneficent, we have believed in Him and put our trust in Him’ (67:29)

When one reads the commentary, it is obvious that there is hardly any mention of Jesus (P) being God or that he is the Son of God; that all Muslims should just convert en masse to Christianity and be Trinitarian worshippers. Such allusions are simply ridiculous, to put it quite bluntly.

Interestingly though, the missionary left out the last verse of the Sura. It refers to people who have earned God’s wrath and people who have gone astray. So who are those people that the Sura’ is referring to? Here is the answer:

The saying of the Exalted, ‘not the Path of those who have earned Your Anger, nor of those that went astray’: the majority of the scholars of tafseer said that ‘those who have earned Your Anger’ are the Jews, and ‘those that went astray’ are the Christians, and there is the hadeeth of the Messenger of Allaah (SAW) reported from Adee bin Haatim (RA) concerning this. And the Jews and the Christians even though both of them are misguided and both of them have Allaah’s Anger on them – the Anger is specified to the Jews, even though the Christians share this with them, because the Jews knew the truth and rejected it and deliberately came with falsehood, so the Anger (of Allaah being upon them) was the description most befitting them. And the Christians were ignorant, not knowing the truth, so misguidance was the description most befitting them.

It is the Christians! The Christians are denounced as those “who have gone astray”. Obviously logic dictates that if the Christians are the ones who are denounced in this verse of the Sura, it does not make any sense for the Qur’an to be supporting any of the Christian doctrines. Thus we see how obviously fallacious the claims of the missionary are and with this exposure, their arguments fall to the ground.

In conclusion, rather than supporting their beliefs Sura’ al-Fatihah actually attacks their doctrines and disputes their claim that they are the guided ones. The Christian missionaries should thus stop dreaming that the Qur’an will ever support their lies. It never had and never will. As far as the Muslims are concerned, Guidance is in Al-Huda (Islam), the Straight Path, and it certainly does not belong to the Christians.

In the end, we are reminded to put our trust in the following verse:

“And they say: “None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian”. Those are their [vain] desires. Say: “Produce your proof if you are truthful!2

We are rest assured that the Christians will never be able to produce their evidence apart from twisting their facts, and their destination is no doubt the Hellfire. And only God knows best! bismika-tombstone Sura' al-Fatihah and the Missionary's "Straight Path"

Footnotes

  1. Qur’an, 5:75 []
  2. Qur’an, 2: 111 []

4 Comments

  1. In fact I will not hold the Christians responsible for such deceit, but I will hold the holy spirit responsible. Christians claim the holy spirit inspires them, if that is true then the holy spirit is inspiring them to be untruthful, and to be distorters of truth, and to try and make up a lie. And such actions cannot be coming from a holy being, rather such action is inspired by someone called Iblis, who is shaytan, because only shaytan inspires people to make a lie against Allah and his Noble Quran.

  2. I would like to post a few comments to the original article “Sura al-Fatihah and the Missionary’s Straight Path” and the first reply.

    First I would like to say that I could not agree more with the article’s premise that the Qur’an does not support the doctrines of Christianity in any way. I can sympathize with the author’s irritation at certain Missionary’s attempts at using the Qur’an as a “tool” for converting muslims to Christianity. Indeed, to me it would seem like playing with fire. I firmly believe that all support and substantiation for the doctrines of Christianity rest firmly in the Bible and nowhere else. If someone were to come to me with a Bible and try to convert me to Islam using passages from it as text supports, he/she would have a very difficult time indeed, and so I can also sympathize with the author’s feelings of contempt for the intelligence of these missionaries. It does seem a foolhardy thing for them to do. However, I believe the things they are trying to support; i.e. the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of Christ, and the doctrine of Salvation are not lies as the author claims, but rather truths. I believe that placing faith in Jesus Christ is the only way for Salvation, and I believe the BIBLE supports this. (John 14:6 and Romans 6:23 are just 2 examples) I would enjoy discussing with the author further about these doctrines and if he (or anyone else) feels inclined to do so, do not hesitate to contact me at my email address. I will not go into my doctrinal supports further here but will await an invitation. However, one can rest assured that I will not be using the Qur’an as a support! In the end, it all boils down to FAITH. Christians believe in Jesus Christ and HIS WORD, and the Muslims belive in Muhammed and his teachings. Which one is the truth? That’s a discussion for another time but one that is of Eternal Significance.

    In response to the respondent that “exposed” the contradiction between Jesus, Peter and Paul and the Covenant of Circumcision I say this: You are opening up a deep subject…one that includes both Judaism and Christianity, and I don’t think that you are really up for a discussion on that one. You say (and rightly so) that Peter and Paul disagreed on the subject…this however does not mean Paul was wrong just because he disagreed with Peter. Peter was a man, just like all of us and he was not perfect…he made mistakes too…Paul just called him on one of them. Also, your supporting text where Jesus supposedly affirms the covenant is not a proof text for the covenant. If you actually look at the context of that verse you will see that Jesus had been accused of breaking the Law by healing a man on the Sabbath. He (Jesus) posed a rebuttal for that by stating that according to the Law (of Moses) one could (and needed to) circumcise a boy if the 8th day fell on the Sabbath. The arguement was that if it was ok to do the “work” of Circumcision on the Sabbath, was it not also lawful to do the “work” of healing? This text has nothing to do with the covenant of circumcision…please don’t take verses out of context. I belive that the respondent’s goal in this arguement was to show the errancy of the BIBLE and thus render it useless and without authority. There are many apparent “contradictions” in the Bible, but that is just what they are…apparent. Not actual. Again, if the respondent wishes to discuss this further I am open to a dialog.

    Thanks for letting me make my comments.

  3. The Straight Path is described in Surat-al-Fatiha as { The Path of those on whom You have bestowed your grace, not the Path of those who earned your Anger, nor of those that went astray }

    And the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) says: Those who earned God’s Anger are Jews and those that went astray are Christians.

    This hadith is well accepted by all scholars who made consensus upon this explanation of the verse, the eminent scholar Ibn Abi Hatem notes: I am not aware of any disagreement regarding this interpretation.

    In conclusion, the Straight Path is not the Path of Jews, nor of Christians.

  4. This is part of the article found here: http://www.guidetosalvation.co.....erbody.htm

    When reading the Bible, one of the first things we learn in the book of Genesis is that God made the following covenant with Abraham (pbuh):

    Genesis 17:10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

    We learn from these verses that this covenant was meant to be everlasting. As we continue reading into the New Testament, we also discover the following:

    Luke 2:21And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

    So here we see that Jesus (pbuh) was also circumcised, in keeping with the covenant God made with Abraham (pbuh). And continuing on to the book of John, we also learn:

    John 7:22Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.

    Here Jesus (pbuh) reaffirms the necessity of this covenant. After making it past the gospels, we come to the books of Paul, but here, things suddenly change:

    Galatians 5: 2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

    Galatians 2: 7But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

    Paul now says that circumcision is not necessary. This causes a problem: Was this covenant meant to be everlasting? How can Paul single-handedly end an everlasting covenant from God? So how did the Apostles take this? Let us find out:

    Galatians 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 12for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. 13And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.

    Galatians 2:14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

    So, obvious by the above verses, they did not agree with Paul. So what does Paul do? He calls them hypocrites and not upright. These are apostles that were with Jesus (pbuh), and Paul, who never in his life met Jesus (pbuh) is calling them misguided hypocrites. Keep in mind that Barnabas was the teacher and protector of Paul, peter the rock (Matt 16:18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ) And James the Just. Regarding James, the following comes from wikipedia:

    The Gospel of the Hebrews fragment 21 relates the risen Jesus’ appearance to James. The Gospel of Thomas (one of the works included in the Nag Hammadi library), saying 12, relates that the disciples asked Jesus, “We are aware that you will depart from us. Who will be our leader?” Jesus said to him, “No matter where you come [from] it is to James the Just that you shall go, for whose sake heaven and earth have come to exist.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *