Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq, Jan. 1, 2025 By AimanAbir18plus – Own work, CC BY 4.0, Wikipedia

Back

I. Introduction

In Door Number Ten of Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq’s work, the doctrine of reincarnation—referred to in the text as the “transmigration of the soul”—is introduced as a central element of the Seventh Covenant. Al-Sadiq posits that the soul, after death, does not experience a fixed, singular destiny but is instead subjected to a repeated process of reincarnation. In his view, the soul’s journey through multiple lives allows it to attain ultimate spiritual perfection, culminating in dominion within a new Edenic spiritual kingdom. This doctrine challenges not only traditional Islamic views but also, and more significantly, the foundational teachings of Christianity. In this article, we will offer a comprehensive biblical and theological refutation of Al-Sadiq’s concept of reincarnation, examining the key theological implications of this belief and demonstrating its inconsistency with Christian orthodoxy.

II. The Doctrine of Reincarnation in Al-Sadiq’s Thought

A. The Cycle of Reincarnation

Al-Sadiq presents the idea of reincarnation as a cyclical process in which the soul undergoes successive lifetimes, each one providing an opportunity for spiritual growth and refinement. This doctrine is not new; it draws heavily on Gnostic ideas and Eastern philosophies, particularly those found in Hinduism and Buddhism. However, Al-Sadiq’s adaptation of this concept places it within the framework of his Seventh Covenant, claiming that the soul’s repeated incarnations will ultimately lead to a perfected state, where certain individuals will rule over a new, spiritualized kingdom of God.

1. Reincarnation and Spiritual Perfection
   Al-Sadiq asserts that the soul, through successive rebirths, can attain spiritual perfection. He teaches that individuals, through their actions in each life, accumulate wisdom and move closer to divine enlightenment. This cycle continues until the soul reaches its ultimate goal, which is an elevated state of existence that corresponds to the divine ruling position in the Seventh Covenant’s new spiritual realm.
2. The Role of Reincarnation in the Seventh Covenant
   Within the framework of the Seventh Covenant, reincarnation is presented as the method by which key spiritual leaders and figures perfect their souls. Al-Sadiq claims that some individuals are destined to undergo these cycles to fulfill the prophetic role of divine rulers. This notion, however, contradicts the biblical view of divine authority and eternal destiny as one that is determined by God’s sovereign will, not by the repeated processes of human reincarnation.

III. A Biblical and Theological Response to Reincarnation

A. Reincarnation is Rejected by Scripture

The most fundamental theological issue with Al-Sadiq’s teaching of reincarnation is its complete rejection by the Bible. The Scriptures consistently affirm that each person experiences one life, followed by judgment, as stated in Hebrews 9:27: “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.” This verse establishes the clear biblical teaching that reincarnation, as a process of multiple earthly lives, is unbiblical.

1. The Finality of Life and Judgment
   The Bible teaches that life on earth is a one-time event, followed by judgment. Jesus teaches in Matthew 25:31-46 that the final judgment is based on the choices made during one’s earthly life, not on any form of reincarnation or multiple lifetimes. The parable of the sheep and the goats illustrates that there is no subsequent opportunity for the soul to undergo rebirth or further spiritual refinement after death.
   • Matthew 25:46: “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” This speaks to the eternal destiny of each soul after one life, further undermining Al-Sadiq’s premise of reincarnation.
2. Ecclesiastes 3:20-21
   The Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes affirms that both man and animals share a common fate in death, going “to one place.” The idea of a cyclical process of death and rebirth is absent, and the text highlights the finality of death: “All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return.” The cycle of reincarnation is, therefore, a non-biblical concept.
3. Luke 16:19-31
   In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus explicitly teaches that after death, there is no opportunity for a second life or reincarnation. The rich man, after dying, is in torment, while Lazarus is in comfort. This parable powerfully affirms that once a person dies, they do not return to earth for another chance at salvation or spiritual development.

B. Theological Issues with Reincarnation

1. The Doctrine of Original Sin and Redemption in Christ
   The concept of reincarnation runs counter to the foundational Christian doctrine of original sin and the necessity of redemption through Christ. If reincarnation were true, it would imply that individuals can work toward spiritual perfection over multiple lifetimes, bypassing the need for Christ’s atoning sacrifice.
   • Romans 5:12 affirms the universal problem of sin: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.”
     The need for Christ to redeem humanity from sin through His death on the cross (Romans 5:8) is central to the Christian faith, and this cannot be reconciled with a belief in reincarnation, which minimizes the need for a single, sufficient atonement.
2. Christ’s Death and Resurrection Are Sufficient for Salvation
   According to Christian theology, Christ’s death on the cross and His subsequent resurrection provide a once-for-all solution for humanity’s sin. The apostle Paul writes in Hebrews 10:10: “And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Reincarnation contradicts this biblical teaching by suggesting that human beings can purify themselves over successive lives, which undermines the finality and sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice.
3. The Finality of Judgment
   The doctrine of reincarnation suggests a continuous cycle of rebirths, but this undermines the biblical doctrine of the final judgment. Hebrews 9:27 makes it clear that after death comes judgment, a concept that would be rendered meaningless if reincarnation were true. Reincarnation essentially removes the urgency of making a decision for Christ in this life, as it falsely suggests that there are endless opportunities for spiritual development across multiple lifetimes.

IV. Historical and Philosophical Background of Reincarnation

A. Eastern and Gnostic Influences on Al-Sadiq’s Doctrine

Al-Sadiq’s teaching on reincarnation is not derived from the Bible but is instead heavily influenced by Eastern and Gnostic philosophical systems. In both Hinduism and Buddhism, the soul is thought to pass through multiple lifetimes, experiencing cycles of birth, death, and rebirth until it reaches spiritual enlightenment. These systems have been historically rejected by Christianity for their pantheistic and cyclical views of life and death.

• Hinduism: Reincarnation is tied to the law of karma, where actions in one life determine the circumstances of the next. This is in direct contrast to the Christian doctrine of grace, which is not earned through actions but received through faith in Christ.
• Gnosticism: Many Gnostic traditions embraced reincarnation as a means of spiritual ascent, where the soul ascends to higher realms through cycles of earthly existence. Early Christian leaders, including Irenaeus and Tertullian, rejected these Gnostic teachings as heretical, and their refutations still apply today.

B. Reincarnation and Early Church Rejection

The early Church Fathers were unanimous in their rejection of reincarnation. Figures like Origen, though not entirely orthodox in his theology, did entertain some Gnostic ideas, but he also clearly refuted the idea of reincarnation as incompatible with Christian doctrine. Origen was condemned by the Church for his speculations, which included beliefs in the pre-existence of souls and their eventual reincarnation.

• Tertullian and Irenaeus wrote extensively against Gnostic and other non-Christian teachings, including reincarnation, asserting that the soul’s destiny is determined by God, not through a cyclical process of rebirth.

V. Conclusion: The Finality of Life and the Christian Hope

Al-Sadiq’s teaching on reincarnation in Door Number Ten of his book is a significant departure from the biblical understanding of life, death, and judgment. The doctrine of reincarnation, as presented in his Seventh Covenant, is both unbiblical and theologically dangerous. It undermines the core Christian doctrines of salvation, judgment, and the finality of Christ’s redemptive work. The Bible consistently teaches that each person is appointed one life, followed by judgment (Hebrews 9:27), and that salvation is through Christ alone, not through an endless cycle of reincarnation.

The Christian hope is not one of eternal cycles of rebirth but of eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ, who is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). Reincarnation, as a theological system, undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement and the urgency of the gospel message. Christians are called to live with an eternal perspective, knowing that our time on earth is limited, and that the only path to eternal life is through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

Thus, Al-Sadiq’s doctrine of reincarnation, while appealing to those seeking spiritual enlightenment through personal effort, ultimately leads away from the biblical hope of redemption through grace alone and the finality of judgment. Christians must remain steadfast in the truth of the gospel, proclaiming the hope of eternal life, not through reincarnation, but through the atoning work of Jesus Christ.

The post Part 4 — Door Number Ten: The Transmigration of the SoulA Theological and Exegetical Refutation of Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq’s Doctrine of Reincarnation appeared first on UK Apologetics Library.

Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq, Jan. 1, 2025 By AimanAbir18plus – Own work, CC BY 4.0, Wikipedia

Back

The doctrine of reincarnation has become a significant point of theological contention, particularly in the teachings of Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan, who claims to be the reincarnation of Al-Hussein and a pivotal figure in the Seventh Covenant. In his interpretation of various biblical and Islamic sources, Al-Hassan uses passages such as the Transfiguration in Matthew 17 to support the idea that souls, including those of Moses, Elijah, and others, continue to travel through time, learning from Jesus and fulfilling divine roles. This claim of the transmigration of souls poses severe theological and exegetical problems, both from a biblical and Islamic standpoint. In this section, we will engage in a thorough examination of these issues, offering a clear rebuttal to the idea that John the Baptist, Elijah, or Moses represent instances of reincarnation.

1. The Transfiguration and the Appearance of Moses and Elijah

In Matthew 17:1-9, the Transfiguration takes place, where Jesus is transfigured before His disciples, and Moses and Elijah appear beside Him. The disciples, witnessing this remarkable event, are overwhelmed and wish to build shelters for the three figures—Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. During this event, a voice from the cloud declares, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!” (Matthew 17:5). This moment is a powerful affirmation of Jesus’ divine sonship and His role as the fulfillment of both the Law (Moses) and the Prophets (Elijah).

Al-Hassan’s interpretation of this passage argues that Moses and Elijah’s souls were actively traveling with Jesus, participating in His ministry and learning from Him. He suggests that this implies a continual return of past figures to fulfill a divine purpose in each generation, thereby supporting his view of reincarnation. However, this interpretation is deeply flawed for several reasons:

a. The Role of Moses and Elijah in the Transfiguration

While the appearance of Moses and Elijah alongside Jesus is indeed supernatural, it does not suggest that they were reincarnated or returned in a cyclical manner. Instead, the Transfiguration is a moment where God reveals the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets in the person of Jesus Christ. Moses represents the Law, and Elijah represents the Prophets—both of whom point toward Christ. Their appearance is not a reincarnation of their souls but a symbolic and prophetic affirmation of Jesus’ divine mission and identity. The Transfiguration highlights that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law and prophecy, not a cyclical reincarnation of past figures.

b. Theological Implications of the Transfiguration

The voice from the cloud declaring Jesus to be God’s beloved Son is not a vague endorsement of reincarnation but a direct statement of Jesus’ unique identity and mission. The Bible emphasizes the finality and uniqueness of Christ’s work. If reincarnation were true, it would undermine the unique, once-for-all sacrificial work of Christ. Instead, the Transfiguration serves to affirm that all the promises of God find their “Yes” in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20), not in recurring cycles of soul transmigration.

2. Jesus’ Teaching on Elijah in Matthew 17:10-13

In Matthew 17:10-13, the disciples ask Jesus why the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first. Jesus replies that Elijah has already come and fulfilled his role, referring to John the Baptist. Al-Hassan, however, uses this as further support for reincarnation, arguing that the “Elijah who is to come” is not the same Elijah who lived in the Old Testament but rather the soul of Elijah incarnated in John the Baptist. This interpretation is problematic for several reasons.

a. The Fulfillment of Prophecy

Jesus is not teaching that Elijah was reincarnated in John the Baptist’s body but rather that John the Baptist fulfilled the role of Elijah as the forerunner of the Messiah. This is consistent with the prophecy in Malachi 4:5-6, where Elijah is said to come before the “great and dreadful day of the Lord.” Jesus confirms that John the Baptist is the fulfillment of this prophecy, but he does not imply that Elijah’s soul was reincarnated in him.

The distinction between the role and the individual person is crucial. John is described as the “Elijah” who prepares the way for Jesus, but his mission was distinct and subordinate to the Messiah. There is no suggestion in the text that John the Baptist’s soul was a continuation of Elijah’s soul, nor does the passage imply any cyclical return of past figures.

b. Elijah’s Role as a Forerunner

The statement that “Elijah comes and will restore all things” (Matthew 17:11) refers to the eschatological role of Elijah as a forerunner of the Messiah’s return, as prophesied in Malachi 4:5. This is not a reference to reincarnation but to a future event in which Elijah will reappear in some capacity, preparing the way for the second coming of Christ. The coming of Elijah in the future should not be conflated with the claim of reincarnation in the present age.

3. The Misuse of Islamic Narratives to Support Reincarnation

In the narrative cited by Al-Hassan regarding Ishmael, Al-Hassan attempts to use Islamic esoteric traditions to support the idea that prophets and significant figures reincarnate into new bodies to fulfill their divine roles. According to Al-Hassan, the story of Ishmael’s death and the subsequent torment of his people is used to demonstrate that divine figures return in new forms to fulfill God’s will. However, this interpretation is highly speculative and draws heavily from non-Qur’anic sources and later Islamic traditions, such as those found in Hadith and esoteric interpretations of Scripture.

a. Qur’anic Silence on Reincarnation

The Qur’an does not teach reincarnation, and the concept is absent from the foundational texts of Islam. The Qur’an presents a clear picture of life, death, and judgment, with no indication that individuals are reborn into different bodies. Instead, the Qur’an emphasizes the uniqueness of each individual’s life and the finality of death. Surah 3:185 states, “Every soul shall taste death. And you will only be given your [full] compensation on the Day of Resurrection.”

b. The Role of Prophets in Islam

In Islamic theology, prophets are sent to guide humanity in different eras, but this does not imply that they are reincarnated in each generation. Each prophet, including Ibrahim (Abraham) and Ishmael, fulfilled a unique and divinely appointed mission. Reincarnation, with its cyclical view of life and soul transmigration, is incompatible with the Islamic view of prophecy, which sees each prophet as an individual, divinely appointed, and temporally distinct figure.

4. The Biblical and Islamic Teaching on Resurrection and Judgment

The Bible and the Qur’an both emphasize resurrection, not reincarnation, as the ultimate destiny of the soul. In the Bible, Hebrews 9:27 makes it clear that “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.” Reincarnation would undermine the biblical doctrine of judgment, where each individual is judged once, based on their faith in Christ.

Similarly, the Qur’an teaches that the dead will be resurrected for judgment, not reincarnated into new bodies to live again. Surah 75:36-40 describes the resurrection as the time when the soul is judged based on its deeds, with no suggestion of a cyclical return to earthly life.

5. Conclusion: The Error of Transmigration and Reincarnation

Al-Hassan’s doctrine of reincarnation, particularly as it is based on the appearance of Moses and Elijah during the Transfiguration and his interpretation of John the Baptist as the reincarnation of Elijah, is contrary to both biblical and Islamic teachings. The Bible does not support the notion of soul transmigration but rather upholds the teachings of resurrection, where each individual will stand before God for judgment after death. The Qur’an also upholds the finality of death and resurrection, rejecting the concept of reincarnation.

By distorting the biblical texts on the Transfiguration and misusing Islamic esoteric traditions, Al-Hassan creates a theological framework that is incompatible with the core tenets of both biblical Christianity and orthodox Islam. The hope of resurrection, not reincarnation, is the promise offered by both the Bible and the Qur’an, and it is in this hope that Christians and Muslims alike find their ultimate hope of eternal life.

The post Part 3: The Transmigration of the Soul – A Theological Refutation of Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan’s Reincarnation Doctrine appeared first on UK Apologetics Library.

Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq, Jan. 1, 2025 By AimanAbir18plus – Own work, CC BY 4.0, Wikipedia

Back

A Theological and Exegetical Refutation of Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq’s Doctrine of Reincarnation

Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq’s interpretation of Matthew 16:13-16 and Matthew 11:11-15, which he uses to support the concept of transmigration or reincarnation, offers a troubling reading of the Scriptures that warrants careful theological scrutiny. In these passages, Al-Sadiq suggests that the belief of the people in Jesus’ time in the return of past prophets—such as John the Baptist, Elijah, or Jeremiah—can only be explained through the lens of reincarnation. According to Al-Sadiq, this belief illustrates that Jesus’ disciples thought the souls of these prophets could inhabit a new body, rather than merely reappearing in a different form or fulfilling a prophetic role.

This doctrinal assertion clashes with the biblical teaching on resurrection and the eternal nature of the soul. The idea of reincarnation implies a cyclical return to earthly existence, with the soul being reborn into a new body. However, the Bible consistently rejects this concept and teaches that human beings live once, die, and face judgment, not a continual cycle of reincarnation (Hebrews 9:27). Thus, we will now engage in a theological and exegetical refutation of Al-Sadiq’s doctrine by examining the relevant biblical texts closely.

1. Matthew 16:13-16 and the Disciples’ Understanding of Prophetic Fulfillment

In Matthew 16:13-16, Jesus asks His disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They respond with various answers, including John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the prophets. Al-Sadiq interprets this as evidence that the people, and even the disciples, believed in reincarnation. He argues that since John was alive at the time of Jesus, but some believed that Jesus could be John reincarnated, this demonstrates that the Jews at the time understood reincarnation as a valid concept.

However, this interpretation overlooks the broader context of prophetic fulfillment in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition. The Jews, in their expectation of the Messiah, were well-versed in the notion that certain prophets and figures would return in a different form to fulfill God’s purposes. The belief in the return of Elijah, specifically, was rooted in Malachi 4:5-6, which prophesies that Elijah would come before the “great and dreadful day of the Lord.”

In Jesus’ time, the belief in the return of Elijah was not a belief in reincarnation but rather in the fulfillment of prophecy. When the people speculate that Jesus could be John the Baptist or Elijah, they are not suggesting that John’s soul had entered Jesus’ body; rather, they were interpreting Jesus as the fulfillment of the prophetic role that John and Elijah played. Jesus Himself clarifies this later in Matthew 11:14 when He identifies John the Baptist as the Elijah who was to come, referring to John’s role in preparing the way for the Messiah (Matthew 11:10).

Thus, the disciples’ and people’s confusion was not a theological endorsement of reincarnation, but a misunderstanding of how prophecy was being fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry.

2. Matthew 11:11-15 and the Identity of Elijah

In Matthew 11:11-15, Jesus directly addresses the identity of John the Baptist in relation to Elijah, stating that John is the Elijah who was to come. Al-Sadiq sees this as confirmation of reincarnation, interpreting Jesus’ words as an acknowledgment that Elijah’s soul had returned in John the Baptist’s body. However, this interpretation is misguided. The language of Scripture does not support the idea that Elijah’s soul was reincarnated into John; rather, it is a prophetic fulfillment.

Jesus’ declaration that John is the Elijah who was to come does not imply a literal return of Elijah’s soul into a new body. Instead, Jesus is acknowledging that John fulfills the role prophesied for Elijah—preparing the way for the Lord’s coming (Malachi 4:5-6). This is a thematic and symbolic fulfillment, not a literal transmigration of souls. Furthermore, the Bible teaches that people have one life to live, not repeated cycles of reincarnation (Hebrews 9:27).

3. The Transfiguration and the Appearance of Moses and Elijah

Al-Sadiq also points to the Transfiguration in Matthew 17:1-9 as further evidence for the transmigration of souls. In this passage, Moses and Elijah appear alongside Jesus in a supernatural event. Al-Sadiq suggests that this is evidence that the souls of Elijah and Moses were actively traveling with Jesus and learning from Him.

However, this view is inconsistent with the biblical teaching on the resurrection and the afterlife. The Transfiguration was a unique and supernatural event in which Moses and Elijah appeared to testify to Jesus’ divine nature and His coming suffering (Matthew 17:9). Their appearance was not a demonstration of reincarnation but a sign of Jesus’ glory and the fulfillment of God’s promises. In fact, both Moses and Elijah were known figures in the Jewish faith, and their appearance here underscores the continuity of God’s revelation rather than any notion of soul migration.

Furthermore, the Bible is clear that Elijah did not die but was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kings 2:11), and Moses was buried by God (Deuteronomy 34:5-6), making their appearances in the Transfiguration a unique act of divine revelation rather than evidence of reincarnation.

4. The Biblical Doctrine of Resurrection

In contrast to the idea of reincarnation, the Bible teaches that death is a one-time event for each person, and there is no reincarnation. The Apostle Paul writes in Hebrews 9:27, “Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.” The Bible consistently presents the afterlife as one where individuals face either eternal reward or judgment, based on their faith and actions during their single earthly life. Reincarnation, with its cyclical view of life, stands in opposition to this one-time judgment and the finality of death.

The idea that John’s soul could enter Jesus’ body or that Elijah’s soul could be reincarnated into John the Baptist is not found in Scripture. Instead, both John and Elijah had distinct and significant roles in God’s plan of salvation, which were fulfilled in their own time, with no indication that their souls would be reborn into other bodies.

Additionally, the doctrine of resurrection, which is rooted in the Old Testament and expounded upon in the New Testament, further clarifies that the resurrection is an event in which the dead will be raised to life for final judgment (1 Thessalonians 4:16). This stands in stark contrast to reincarnation, which holds that the soul continues to cycle through multiple earthly lives. Reincarnation lacks any biblical foundation and is foreign to the biblical understanding of the afterlife.

5. The Role of Jesus in the Resurrection

One of the most decisive refutations of reincarnation is the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus’ resurrection is not a temporary return to life as is commonly thought in reincarnation beliefs. Instead, it was a triumphant, bodily resurrection, signifying victory over sin and death. The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 that Christ’s resurrection is “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep,” assuring believers that they, too, will experience a bodily resurrection at the end of the age. This resurrection is a one-time, irreversible event and contradicts the cyclical nature of reincarnation.

Furthermore, in John 11:25-26, Jesus says, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die.” This statement emphasizes eternal life through belief in Christ, not through a repeated cycle of rebirths. The resurrection is a cornerstone of Christian faith, making the idea of reincarnation incompatible with biblical doctrine.

6. The Old Testament Teaching on Death and the Afterlife

The concept of reincarnation also stands at odds with the clear teaching of the Old Testament concerning death and the afterlife. In the Old Testament, the concept of Sheol is presented as a place of the dead where both the righteous and the unrighteous await the final judgment (Isaiah 26:19, Daniel 12:2). There is no suggestion in the Old Testament that souls are reincarnated into new bodies. The emphasis is on the final judgment after death, not a repeated return to earthly life.

Furthermore, the book of Job (Job 14:14) asks, “If someone dies, will they live again?” The implied answer is that after death, there is no return to the earthly realm. The New Testament picks up on this theme, affirming the idea of resurrection rather than reincarnation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Al-Sadiq’s doctrine of reincarnation, as it is based on the biblical passages of Matthew 16 and Matthew 11, is a misinterpretation that fails to account for the context and theological message of Scripture. The Bible does not teach reincarnation but rather the resurrection of the dead, a one-time event followed by judgment. The appearances of Moses and Elijah in the Transfiguration and the identification of John as the fulfillment of Elijah’s prophetic role are not evidence of soul transmigration but of God’s ongoing work in redemptive history.

As we continue this refutation, we will explore further arguments against the idea of reincarnation from both biblical theology and historical Christian doctrine, demonstrating that the Bible’s teachings are fundamentally opposed to the concept of transmigration of the soul.

The doctrine of reincarnation, as proposed by Al-Sadiq, presents a worldview that is incompatible with biblical truth. Reincarnation denies the finality of death, undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice, and contradicts the Bible’s clear teaching on resurrection and judgment. The Christian doctrine of resurrection offers the hope of eternal life, a hope that transcends the cycles of rebirth and the endless striving for perfection. This hope rests in the completed work of Jesus Christ and the promise of bodily resurrection, a promise that is central to the gospel message.

The post PART 2 — Door Number Ten: The Transmigration of the Soul appeared first on UK Apologetics Library.

A Theological and Exegetical Refutation of Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq’s Doctrine of Reincarnation

(Refuting The Seventh Covenant with Ahmed Al-Hassan, Door Number Ten, pp. 213–220)

Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq, Jan. 1, 2025 By AimanAbir18plus – Own work, CC BY 4.0, Wikipedia

Back

Foundational Scripture

“And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”
— Hebrews 9:27 (KJV)

❖ Introduction

In Door Number Ten – The Transmigration of the Soul (pp. 213–220) of The Seventh Covenant with Ahmed Al-Hassan, Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq teaches the metempsychosis or reincarnation of souls—a doctrine foreign to biblical revelation. He asserts that souls are tested in successive lives by being born into new bodies—whether human, animal, plant, or mineral—in order to evolve and be purified through suffering. He claims this is the true meaning of divine justice and the reason for inequality in the world.

This heresy blends elements from Hinduism, Kabbalah, Gnostic cosmology, and Sufi mysticism, distorting the biblical worldview of creation, death, and judgment. This study offers a verse-by-verse theological and exegetical refutation, affirming the finality of death and the exclusivity of salvation in Christ.

I. The Creation of the Soul: A Unique, Non-Repeating Event — Genesis 2:7

“Then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

This verse defines the origin of man as both material and spiritual, with the soul (nephesh) created at the moment of divine animation. The soul is not a recycled or transferred essence from a former creature. Each human being is a newly created individual, not an incarnated spirit from another form.

Exegetical Refutation:
Hashem’s theory, as seen in Door Number Ten (pp. 214–215), that souls migrate through many vessels, is utterly foreign to the creation narrative. The creation account shows God as the sole and direct originator of each soul—not as a cosmic manager of recycled spirits.

II. The Finality of Death and the Certainty of Judgment — Hebrews 9:27

“And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”

This verse offers the most explicit and fatal contradiction to Hashem’s theory. In Door Number Ten, p. 216, he alleges that souls are born repeatedly to complete divine tests. But Hebrews 9:27 declares a single appointment: death—followed by immediate judgment.

Greek Note:
The word apokeitai (“it is appointed”) is a perfect passive participle, indicating a fixed, completed decree. Death happens once; it is a divinely scheduled event for each individual.

Doctrinal Refutation:
Reincarnation removes judgment and grace, substituting works-based progression. It makes the gospel irrelevant. If souls earn perfection through endless lifetimes, the Cross of Christ becomes unnecessary (cf. Hebrews 9:28).

III. Individual Accountability — Ezekiel 18:4

“Behold, all souls are mine… the soul that sinneth, it shall die.”

Hashem teaches that souls are recycled through suffering to purify themselves and pass divine tests. Yet Ezekiel 18 contradicts this: each soul is judged by its own conduct within its single life. The idea of karmic debt transferred across multiple incarnations is entirely absent in the passage and contradicts its point.

Exegetical Highlight:
The “soul that sinneth” refers to individual moral agency, not to an ethereal spirit learning across millennia. Reincarnation contradicts personal accountability and replaces it with impersonal determinism.

Refutation of Door Ten:
Hashem (p. 217) appeals to the idea that souls must re-enter life due to failures in previous lives. But this theological framework contradicts the justice of God, who holds each soul accountable for one life, one moral record, and one eternal outcome.

IV. Misuse of Elijah and John the Baptist — Luke 1:17; John 1:21

Hashem (p. 218) asserts that Elijah reincarnated as John the Baptist to support his soul-transference theory. But this is an abuse of typological prophecy and not reincarnation.

“And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias…”
— Luke 1:17
“And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not.”
— John 1:21

Exegetical Correction:
John the Baptist operates in the spirit and power of Elijah, i.e. the same prophetic role and authority. It is not a statement of Elijah’s soul being reused. In fact, John explicitly denies being Elijah. Furthermore, Elijah appears bodily on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:3), still himself.

Refutation of Hashem:
There is no evidence Elijah died or was reincarnated. His appearance with Moses shows personal continuity, not soul recycling. Hashem’s claim is a distortion of prophetic imagery to support a pagan worldview.

V. Resurrection Replaces Reincarnation — John 5:28–29

“All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth…”

The biblical hope is the resurrection of the body, not soul transference. Resurrection is an eschatological event, not a cycle. Hashem’s model replaces this with a pagan, karmic wheel.

Exegetical Point:
The term “graves” is literal (mnēmeiois), and the future resurrection is universal. People are not reborn after death—they sleep until the resurrection (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:16).

Rebuttal to Door Ten:
Hashem denies resurrection by redefining it as spiritual progression across lives (p. 219). But Jesus’ own teaching is about the reanimation of the same body, for judgment or life—a one-time event, not an ongoing process.

VI. The Cross of Christ Is Nullified by Reincarnation — Hebrews 10:10–14

“By one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.”

Hashem teaches that souls must be tested across lives to achieve perfection (p. 220). But Scripture teaches the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ is the only means of sanctification.

Exegetical Emphasis:
“Once for all” (hapax) is used repeatedly in Hebrews to emphasize the finality and sufficiency of Christ’s work. There is no room for reincarnation, karmic testing, or evolutionary soul-cleansing.

Conclusion:
If sanctification is possible through reincarnational testing, then grace is abolished. Hashem’s gospel is not good news—it is an endless cycle of works-righteousness and mystic confusion.

❖ Summary: Reincarnation Is a Damnable Heresy

Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq’s teaching in Door Number Ten (pp. 213–220) is:

• Mystical, not Scriptural
• Derived from Gnosticism and Eastern mysticism, not the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures
• Contrary to the gospel of Christ, which declares one life, one death, one judgment, and one Saviour

“If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”
— Galatians 1:9

His system replaces resurrection with reincarnation, grace with works, and Christ with mystic ascent. It is a spiritual deception of the gravest kind and must be publicly exposed and rejected.

The post 🔥 PART 1 — Door Number Ten: The Transmigration of the Soul appeared first on UK Apologetics Library.

Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq, Jan. 1, 2025 By AimanAbir18plus – Own work, CC BY 4.0, Wikipedia

Back

Countering the Teachings of Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq: The Finality of Judgment and Reincarnation

The teachings presented by Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan in the dialogue promote a belief in reincarnation and multiple opportunities for spiritual elevation through cycles of lives. He also validates the Gnostic mystical book Al-Haft Al-Shareef as containing truth, tying it to the concept of reincarnation and the “Raj’a” (return). These teachings, however, are in direct contradiction to Christian doctrine, which affirms the uniqueness and finality of Jesus Christ’s incarnation, the concept of one life followed by judgment, and the sufficiency of salvation through faith in Christ. The biblical stance on these topics starkly refutes the ideas espoused by Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan.

1. The Finality of Judgment and Reincarnation

Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan agrees with the notion that once a person’s incarnations are over, it is their final opportunity for spiritual elevation. After this, the person will face “personal judgment.” The implication of this doctrine is that there is a continual cycle of lives, and each life is merely another chance to be tested, with judgment being postponed until after the final incarnation.

The biblical view stands in sharp contrast to this concept. Hebrews 9:27 clearly affirms the finality of death and judgment: “It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.” According to this verse, there is no cycle of death and rebirth. Instead, each person lives one life, and at the end of that life, they face the judgment of God. The idea of reincarnation contradicts the Christian understanding that each person’s eternal destiny is sealed at death, based on the choices they make in this single life.

2. The Nature of Death and Reincarnation

Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan refers to “Wafat” (death) as the conclusion of one’s cycle of incarnations, which supposedly ends once the individual has completed their spiritual testing. He argues that death marks a transition, after which there will be no further incarnations for that individual. This teaching echoes the Eastern religious notion of samsara, or the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth.

However, the Bible teaches that death is the end of the earthly life and the beginning of a new reality, either eternal life with God or eternal separation from Him. Jesus Himself asserts in Matthew 25:46, “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” There is no biblical concept of multiple opportunities for reincarnation. Death is not a cyclical transition but a decisive moment leading to the final judgment. The Bible affirms that after death comes judgment, and after judgment, the eternal fate of an individual is sealed. There is no second chance in the next life.

Additionally, the apostle Paul warns against being deceived by false doctrines, including those that promote cycles of reincarnation. In Galatians 1:8, he writes, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” This caution should be applied to the teachings of reincarnation, which directly contradict the gospel of Jesus Christ.

3. The Deceptive Nature of Gnostic Teachings

Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan expresses his admiration for Al-Haft Al-Shareef, a Gnostic text that explores ideas related to reincarnation. Despite acknowledging the presence of “a small amount of corruption” in the text, he elevates it as one of the greatest books of all time. This perspective, however, aligns with a key principle of Gnostic traditions: the belief that hidden or esoteric knowledge is superior to the plain teachings of Scripture.

The Bible repeatedly warns against such Gnostic ideas, which often present themselves as secret or superior knowledge hidden from the masses. In 1 Timothy 6:20-21, Paul exhorts Timothy, “O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called ‘knowledge,’ for by professing it some have swerved from the faith.” This warning is crucial for discernment, as Gnostic doctrines like reincarnation are not only unbiblical but also lead people away from the truth of God’s Word.

Furthermore, the apostle John in 1 John 4:1 urges believers to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God.” The fact that Al-Haft Al-Shareef contains corrupt teachings is a clear signal that it should not be elevated as a trustworthy source of truth. The Bible alone is the final and complete revelation of God, and any teaching that deviates from it is suspect and should be rejected.

4. The Problem with Elevating to Angelic Status

In his teachings, Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan makes the claim that angels can become human, but humans cannot become angels. This concept seems to imply that there is some form of fluidity between the two realms, with angels being able to take human form. However, the Bible is clear that angels and humans are distinct creations, with separate roles and purposes in God’s plan.

Hebrews 1:14 explicitly affirms the role of angels: “Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?” Angels are spiritual beings created by God for specific purposes, and there is no biblical basis for the idea that they can assume human form, nor that humans can elevate to angelic status. This idea is contrary to the Christian understanding of both the nature of angels and the unique role of human beings in God’s creation.

In fact, the Bible describes the ultimate purpose of human beings as being in fellowship with God through Christ, not as aspiring to become angels. Jesus affirms this in Matthew 22:30, where He teaches, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” This suggests that in the afterlife, humans will be transformed to a state similar to angels, but this does not imply humans can become angels during their earthly lives.

The idea of humans becoming angels diminishes the uniqueness of God’s creation and undermines the special relationship between humanity and God, as described in Genesis 1:26-27, where God created humans in His image, distinct from all other creatures.

5. The Deceptive Claim of Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan’s Incarnation

One of the most troubling aspects of Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan’s teachings is his claim that he is the incarnation of Al-Hussein, the son of Ali. He asserts that he has knowledge of people’s past incarnations and that he, too, has reincarnated from past lives. This claim undermines the sufficiency of Jesus Christ’s work and is incompatible with Christian doctrine, which affirms that Jesus Christ’s incarnation is unique and sufficient for the salvation of humanity.

The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the only incarnate Son of God. In John 14:6, Jesus Himself states, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” There is no biblical support for the idea that anyone else could incarnate as a past figure, such as Al-Hussein. The uniqueness of Christ’s incarnation is a cornerstone of Christian belief, and the idea of other incarnations serves only to detract from His work.

Moreover, in Colossians 1:15-19, Paul describes Christ as “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation,” and “in Him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.” This affirms the supremacy and uniqueness of Christ’s incarnation, which is far above any human incarnation or reincarnation. To suggest that someone like Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan could be the incarnation of a past figure is a direct contradiction to this biblical truth.

Conclusion: The Need for Discernment

The teachings of Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan promote concepts that are fundamentally incompatible with Christian theology. Reincarnation, the elevation of humans to angelic status, and the claim of incarnating as a past religious figure are all doctrines that contradict the clear teachings of Scripture. The Bible is unambiguous in its assertion that humans live one life, face one judgment, and that salvation is found in Jesus Christ alone.

The Bible warns Christians to avoid teachings that deviate from the gospel. In Galatians 1:8, Paul writes, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” This warning should be applied to any teaching that introduces new doctrines like reincarnation, which distort the gospel and lead people away from the truth.

Believers are called to test everything against the truth of Scripture, rejecting any teachings that do not align with the gospel of Christ. As Paul exhorts in 2 Timothy 2:15, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” In this age of deception, it is crucial for Christians to stay rooted in the Word of God and reject any falsehoods that threaten the gospel’s purity and sufficiency.

The post (Part 2) A Biblical Refutation of Door Number NineRaj’a (Reincarnation) – A Polemic Against The Goal of the Wise by Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq appeared first on UK Apologetics Library.

Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq, Jan. 1, 2025 By AimanAbir18plus – Own work, CC BY 4.0, Wikipedia

Back

The doctrine of Raj’a, as described in Chapter 9 of The Goal of the Wise by Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq, is one of the most dangerous theological errors presented by the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light (AROPL). In this chapter, the author asserts that the righteous, such as the prophets and select companions, will return physically to the earth before the Day of Judgment, to assist the Qaim — their so-called divine vicegerent — in establishing an Edenic kingdom. This teaching is not only absent from biblical revelation but is utterly incompatible with the entire structure of redemptive history as revealed in Scripture.

It is, in fact, a recycled Gnostic error, repackaged in Islamic-mystical terminology, and now used to justify the exaltation of a man (Ahmed Al-Hassan) who claims divine rulership. The idea of Raj’a is not Christian, not apostolic, and in truth, not even biblical prophecy — it is a counterfeit doctrine dressed in the robes of esotericism.

1. Hebrews 9:27-28 – Death Happens Once, Then Judgment “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”
   — Hebrews 9:27–28 (KJV)

This verse speaks with absolute clarity. It teaches that death is a one-time appointment for all humans. There is no room for Raj’a — no cyclical return, no second embodiment, no resurrection into another earthly life prior to the Judgment. The doctrine of return implies that death is not final, and that God’s judgment can be postponed or suspended. Scripture, however, says the exact opposite: that death leads to immediate accountability before God, not to a second earthly assignment.

To teach otherwise is to undermine the Gospel, which depends on the finality of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice, not on a rolling cycle of reincarnated souls accomplishing prophetic tasks for a self-proclaimed Qaim.

1. Luke 16:19–31 – Jesus Denies Return from the Dead “Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them… Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them… If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”
   — Luke 16:27–31 (KJV)

In this account, Jesus makes it crystal clear that there is no return from the realm of the dead to accomplish earthly missions. The rich man begs Abraham to send Lazarus back to earth to warn his family. The request is denied outright. Why? Because God has already given His testimony in the Law and the Prophets. And now, for us, He has spoken fully in His Son (Hebrews 1:1–2). This passage utterly destroys the idea that dead saints like Al-Hussein, Salman, or Elijah will return before the general resurrection to support a new messianic figure.

1. John 5:28–29 – The One Resurrection, Not a Staggered Raj’a “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
   And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life;
   and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”
   — John 5:28–29 (KJV)

Jesus promises a single, global resurrection — not a special, secretive “return” for chosen souls. Every person will be raised at the last day, not in pre-resurrection Raj’a missions. Those in the Ahmadi sect who claim that the companions of the Imams or prophets will rise before Judgment Day to assist the Qaim contradict Christ’s own words. The resurrection is not a tool of political theology to elevate one man’s kingdom — it is God’s universal act of judgment and justice.

1. Ecclesiastes 12:7 – Finality of Death, Not Recycling of Souls “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.”
   — Ecclesiastes 12:7 (KJV)

This verse lays out the final process: the body returns to dust, and the soul returns to God. There is no biblical teaching of souls lingering, re-entering other bodies, or waiting for “divine assignments” under another messianic figure. Raj’a is a denial of this clear spiritual truth. The AROPL doctrine replaces biblical clarity with occult speculation and recycled gnostic myths that diminish the finality of death and judgment.

1. Job 7:9–10 – The Dead Do Not Return to Earth “As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away: so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more.
   He shall return no more to his house, neither shall his place know him any more.”
   — Job 7:9–10 (KJV)

The teaching of Job is as decisive as Hebrews. Once a man dies, he does not return. The idea of Raj’a — of people reappearing in their earthly homes or cities to fulfil a mission — is directly refuted. It is not poetry. It is divine truth. The dead do not return until the final resurrection, and they do not return in secrecy, in support of cult leaders.
Raj’a Is a Pagan Gnostic Concept – Not from God

The doctrine of Raj’a in The Goal of the Wise is not derived from any of the prophets — neither Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, nor the Apostles taught this. Its true origins are pagan, echoing Hindu cycles of rebirth and Gnostic soul-travel teachings, not biblical truth.

Early Christian heresies — especially Gnostic groups in the 2nd and 3rd centuries — also taught the “return” of souls in new bodies to fulfil secret missions. These were soundly condemned by the Church. The Bible teaches resurrection, not reincarnation; finality in death, not open-ended cycles.
The Greatest Danger: Replacing Christ with the Qaim

By teaching Raj’a, Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq and his sect have elevated the Qaim above Jesus Christ. According to them, the dead rise not for Christ’s return — but to support a man from Iraq claiming to be a messianic ruler. This is blasphemous substitution. Christ alone is the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25). The dead will rise for His appearing, not for any other claimant.

“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout... and the dead in Christ shall rise first.” — 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (KJV)

Ahmed Al-Hassan does not raise the dead. He does not judge the world. He does not offer eternal life. Christ does — and it is to Christ alone that the dead will rise. Any doctrine that points to another “Riser” or “Qaim” as the one who triggers a resurrection of saints is an anti-Christ narrative, diverting attention away from the Lord of Glory.

The Resurrection is the Hope of the Righteous – Not an Earthly Return to Serve Another Messiah

Raj’a quited by Ahmed Al-Hassan undermines the blessed hope of the Church — the glorious return of Jesus Christ and the resurrection at His appearing. The New Testament presents this event as the consummation of all redemptive history:

“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
— Titus 2:13 (KJV)

The hope of the apostles was not to return in secret, in different bodies, to help a new vicegerent. Their hope was fixed on the return of Christ, and their resurrection to reign with Him in glory — not in a recycled earthly state under another name. When Paul taught on the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, he never hinted at staggered reappearances of saints for a pre-judgment mission. He affirmed a universal resurrection tied solely to the last trumpet and Christ’s victory.

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.”
— 1 Corinthians 15:22–23 (KJV)

Note: “at His coming”, not before. Not during the reign of a Qaim. Not through secret returns of the righteous. The resurrection is singular and future, not fragmented and present.

False Interpretations of Return in the Old Testament

Proponents of Raj’a may attempt to invoke isolated verses like Malachi 4:5 or allusions to Elijah’s return, claiming it prefigures their doctrine. But Scripture interprets Scripture, and Jesus Himself provides clarity.

“And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.”
— Matthew 11:14 (KJV)

Christ explicitly says that John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah (cf. Luke 1:17), fulfilling the prophecy — not through reincarnation or literal return of Elijah’s soul. The text does not support the idea that Elijah’s person returned but that his prophetic office and spirit were manifested in John. There is no Raj’a here — only typology and fulfilment through mission and anointing.

To distort these verses into a doctrine of literal soul-return is eisegesis — inserting foreign mystical meanings into the sacred text. The pattern of Scripture does not reveal cycles of reappearance but divine appointments, once for all.

Historical Parallels: Raj’a and Gnostic Soul Doctrine

The concept of souls returning to earth in new bodies to complete divine missions is not new. It is a hallmark of Gnosticism and various Eastern religions:

• In Orphic and Pythagorean traditions, souls are said to undergo multiple incarnations, bound by fate and progressing through purification.
• Gnostic sects, such as the Basilideans and Valentinians, taught that enlightened souls return in successive lifetimes until they attain full knowledge (gnosis) and liberation from the material world.

These heresies were categorically rejected by the early church fathers, including Irenaeus in Against Heresies, who wrote:

“They [the Gnostics] imagine that the soul can be transferred from one body to another… such opinion we reject entirely as contrary to the Gospel and the resurrection.”

Raj’a, as taught by Abdullah Hashem, is a mutation of these same ideas — cloaked in Qur’anic and Shia-like garments but bearing the unmistakable DNA of pagan and Gnostic theology. It opposes the Christian doctrine of bodily resurrection and affirms instead an occult cycle of special returns for divine service.

2 Corinthians 5:8 – The Soul’s Destination is Heaven or Judgment

Paul’s writings offer further refutation of Raj’a. In 2 Corinthians 5, he affirms the soul’s immediate transition upon death — not to limbo, nor to await a return, but to the presence of the Lord.

“We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.”
— 2 Corinthians 5:8 (KJV)

This is the destination of the righteous dead. They are not dispatched again for secret tasks on earth. Their reward is not to serve another false Christ, but to dwell in the glory of the risen Saviour. Raj’a insults this promise and imposes a second, inferior calling on the saints of God.

The Danger of a New Mediator: Substituting the Risen Christ

Ultimately, Raj’a is not just error — it is an idolatrous system. By proposing that saints return to serve a figure other than Christ, AROPL introduces a new priesthood, a new messianic figure, and a false kingdom.

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
— 1 Timothy 2:5 (KJV)

Ahmed Al-Hassan is not that mediator. He is not the one through whom the saints operate. There is no chain of Raj’a leading to him. There is only one Lord, one Spirit, one resurrection — and it is all tied to Jesus, not to a modern claimant of spiritual office.

To teach otherwise is to create a counterfeit priesthood — a spiritual betrayal akin to the error of Korah (Numbers 16), who sought to usurp Moses’ role. Jude warns us that false teachers in the last days will “perish in the gainsaying of Core” (Jude 11), inserting themselves between God and His people.

The Testimony of Revelation: No Raj’a, Only Resurrection and Judgment

The Book of Revelation gives the clearest chronology of the end — and Raj’a is nowhere to be found.

“And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God… and they were judged every man according to their works.”
— Revelation 20:12 (KJV)

There is one resurrection before the White Throne. There is no hidden phase, no pre-judgment campaign of righteous souls returning to help a new figure. Even the martyrs, who were promised vindication (Revelation 6:9–11), are told to rest yet for a little season — not to return prematurely.

“These all died in faith, not having received the promises… but now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God.”
— Hebrews 11:13, 16 (KJV)

The dead in Christ are waiting for heaven — not for Iraqi mystics to commission them for secret missions.

Conclusion: Raj’a is an Anti-Christian Lie

Raj’a is not a “deeper truth” — it is an ancient deception. It denies the finality of death, the glory of Christ, the sufficiency of His mediation, and the integrity of biblical eschatology.

It offers instead a mystical dream in which the dead can be summoned to serve a false messiah — a man claiming to be a divine ruler in a new Edenic kingdom. It is occultism disguised as prophecy, and Gnosticism masquerading as Islam and Christianity.

Christian believers must reject this heresy with clarity and boldness. We do not await the return of Al-Hussein, Elijah, or Salman. We await the return of Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords. And on that Day — not before — the dead will rise, and every eye shall see Him (Revelation 1:7).

“Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him…”
— Revelation 1:7 (KJV)

Let no man deceive you with myths, secret doors, or claims of divine succession. The Resurrection belongs to Christ alone.

Misrepresentation of Al-Haft Al-Shareef and Reincarnation

Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq asserts:

“Imam Al-Sadiq (From Him is Peace) maps out and explains how many incarnations a soul has and explains how a soul can reincarnate into human, animal, plant, or inanimate forms such as rocks and stones.”
(Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq, The Goal of the Wise)

This claim is not only a distortion of Islamic teaching but also stands in stark contrast to biblical doctrine. The concept of reincarnation, or the transmigration of souls, is thoroughly foreign to both the Quran and the Bible. By promoting such an idea, Al-Sadiq is advancing a doctrine that is neither rooted in Islamic tradition nor supported by the teachings of the Bible. To argue for the reincarnation of souls into various forms — human, animal, plant, or inanimate objects — is to reject the foundational belief that each individual has one life and faces judgment afterward.

In Christianity, the Bible is clear:

“And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”
(Hebrews 9:27)

This verse establishes the biblical doctrine of the finality of human life: each individual is granted one life on earth, and after death, there is no return to the physical world. Unlike reincarnation, where the soul is reborn multiple times, Hebrews 9:27 teaches that there is a definitive and singular end to each life, followed by a final judgment. This teaching stands in opposition to the cycle of reincarnation that Al-Sadiq propagates, revealing his doctrine to be not only foreign to Islam but also contradictory to Christian principles.

Furthermore, the notion that souls can reincarnate into inanimate objects like rocks and stones is completely foreign to biblical thought. In the Bible, creation is fundamentally separated from humanity. Humans are distinct from animals, and animals are distinct from plants and inanimate objects. This hierarchical view of creation is essential to understanding God’s design in the world and does not permit the idea that a soul could inhabit non-human forms or inanimate objects. Reincarnation blurs these boundaries, distorting the created order that is described in Genesis:

“So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
(Genesis 1:27)

This verse asserts the unique nature of human beings in creation, made in the image of God. The idea that a human soul could return in the body of an animal or a rock undermines this fundamental truth.

Theological Implications of Reincarnation in Al-Sadiq’s Teachings

The implications of reincarnation in Al-Sadiq’s teachings are deeply problematic. If souls were reincarnated multiple times into different forms, there would be no definitive reckoning for their actions. The idea that souls experience several lifetimes before facing judgment removes the biblical concept of immediate accountability. In Christianity, judgment is certain and comes after death:

“For it is written, ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God.’ So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.”
(Romans 14:11-12)

This passage emphasizes that each person will give an account of their life to God after death. Reincarnation, by contrast, presents multiple opportunities to live, thus delaying or removing the urgency of moral responsibility. By embracing the notion of reincarnation, Al-Sadiq undermines the biblical teaching that each soul is accountable for its actions in the one life God gives it.

Additionally, the Bible teaches that after death, all will be resurrected for judgment, further rejecting the idea of repeated cycles of death and rebirth. Jesus Himself affirms the resurrection of the dead in John 5:28-29:

“Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.”

This passage underscores the Christian doctrine of the resurrection, where every person is resurrected for final judgment, a concept completely incompatible with the notion of reincarnation.

A Christian Response to the Doctrine of the Return of the Prophets and Imams

In Al-Sadiq’s claims, he also touches on the return of various religious figures, including Imam Hussein and others, who are said to return in a form of reincarnation. He states:

“So Al-Ghorai asked the Imam (From Him is Peace), ‘Do the Prophets and Messengers return in a chronological order?’ The Imam (From Him is Peace) replied, ‘No, not necessarily, the return of the Prophets and Messengers in this incarnation is not chronological and not one after the other, and not in a certain order.’”
(Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq, The Goal of the Wise)

This notion of reincarnated figures contradicts the biblical teaching of Christ’s return and the resurrection of all the dead. The Bible speaks of a singular return of Christ and a final resurrection, with no mention of past figures returning in multiple lifetimes. The return of Jesus Christ is a future event that will mark the conclusion of human history:

“For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.”
(1 Thessalonians 4:16)

In Christianity, it is not a reincarnation of past figures but the return of Christ that ushers in the final judgment. The belief that past figures will return in human form is inconsistent with this future promise. The Bible clearly teaches that it is Christ alone who will return in glory, and all others will await their resurrection at His coming.

Additionally, Al-Sadiq’s ideas about the chronological return of prophets further disrupt biblical theology. According to the Bible, Jesus Christ is the final prophet and the fulfillment of all prophecy. The Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament do not support the idea that previous figures such as Moses, Abraham, or David will return in human form to fulfill God’s promises. Instead, Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets:

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.”
(Matthew 5:17)

Jesus’ statement makes clear that He is the culmination of all prophetic hope, and there is no biblical foundation for the return of past prophets in any form, much less reincarnation.

Theological Deception and the Role of False Doctrines

Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq’s promotion of reincarnation and the return of the prophets serves as a theological deception. These teachings, though presented under the guise of religious authority, are at odds with both the Quranic and biblical truths. As Christians, we believe that false teachings about reincarnation, spiritual authority, and the return of past prophets mislead people away from the truth of Christ.

The Bible consistently warns against false teachings and those who lead others astray:

“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.”
(2 Peter 2:1)

This passage highlights the dangers of false teachers who introduce heresies that lead people away from the truth. The teachings of Al-Sadiq, particularly his views on reincarnation and the return of past figures, can be seen as part of this deception. Christians must be vigilant in guarding against such errors, which threaten to divert believers from the gospel message.

The post (Part 1) A Biblical Refutation of Door Number NineRaj’a (Reincarnation) – A Polemic Against The Goal of the Wise by Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq appeared first on UK Apologetics Library.

Ahmed Al-Hassan — “The Mohammedan soul can replicate itself into another twin soul which is an identical copy of itself”

Biblical and Theological Rebuttal to the Doctrine of a ‘Replicating Soul’

1. The Soul Is Created Directly by God — Not Replicable

According to Scripture, every soul is a direct and unique creation of God. There is no indication anywhere in the Bible that souls can duplicate, replicate, or reproduce themselves into “twin souls.”

• Zechariah 12:1 – “The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the spirit of man within him…”

God alone is the Creator of the human soul. Souls do not possess self-generative capacity. To suggest otherwise inserts a divine function into a creature, which borders on blasphemy and dangerously elevates the human soul to a status that belongs to God alone.

This position aligns with historic non-Calvinist evangelical and conservative theology, such as that found in the Anabaptist and early Baptist traditions, which affirm soul creationism — the belief that each soul is individually created by God and not transmitted or duplicated by other souls.

2. Each Human Being Is a Unique Individual — Not a Metaphysical Clone

The Bible upholds the irreducible individuality of every person. Every soul is distinct and accountable before God.

• Ezekiel 18:4 – “Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.”

This clearly contradicts any notion that souls can be copied or shared. If souls could be cloned or twinned, the personal responsibility, guilt, or righteousness of a person would become entangled with their so-called “twin.” This would dismantle the very principle of individual moral accountability, which is foundational to God’s justice.

3. The Replication Concept Is Not Biblical — It Is Esoteric and Gnostic

The idea that a “Mohammedan soul can replicate itself” is not derived from the Bible, but rather reflects elements found in Gnostic and esoteric spirituality.

Gnosticism — an early heresy that the apostles and early church opposed — taught that spiritual beings could emanate or replicate other beings. It also taught about “divine twins” or “aeons” that came forth from higher spiritual beings. These beliefs were roundly rejected by biblical Christians because they:

• Denied the unique creation of human beings
• Undermined the doctrine of sin and personal responsibility
• Confused the Creator with the creature

Ahmed Al-Hassan’s teaching here resurrects this same heresy in modern form, claiming that souls can spawn spiritual copies — a spiritually dangerous and theologically incoherent claim.

4. Only God Can Make Beings in His Image — Not Souls Themselves

The Bible teaches that God alone is the Author of life, and only He creates in His image.

• Genesis 1:27 – “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

Nowhere does the Bible teach that the soul can make another soul, or that any part of creation can replicate itself metaphysically. Only God has this capacity. Suggesting that a soul can duplicate itself places divine creative power in the hands of a created being. That is idolatrous and echoes the serpent’s lie in Genesis 3:5 — “you shall be as gods.”

5. Biblical Anthropology Does Not Allow for Identical Twin Souls

The doctrine of the soul taught in Scripture is dualistic yet unified — a person is a body and a soul, uniquely formed by God. The idea of “identical twin souls” assumes that a spiritual essence can exist in multiple, identical instances, which violates both logic and biblical anthropology.

In the Bible, each person’s inner man (2 Corinthians 4:16) is distinct. Even when believers are being transformed into the image of Christ (Romans 8:29), they do not lose their individuality, nor become copies or spiritual clones. They are conformed in moral likeness, not metaphysical duplication.

6. This Doctrine Destroys the Gospel

If souls can be replicated or duplicated, how would the atonement of Christ apply?

• Did Christ die for one soul or for its copies?
• Can a “twin soul” sin apart from the original?
• Is salvation extended to duplicates?

This concept makes nonsense of the gospel. Christ came to redeem individuals — real, whole, unique persons (Hebrews 9:27). He did not die for metaphysical abstractions or copies. The doctrine of soul replication erodes personal salvation and turns biblical redemption into a metaphysical puzzle.

Summary

Ahmed Al-Hassan’s statement — “The Mohammedan soul can replicate itself into another twin soul which is an identical copy of itself” — is:

• Unbiblical: No Scripture supports such an idea.
• Theologically corrupt: It places divine creative power in the soul.
• Philosophically incoherent: It breaks the logic of identity and individuality.
• Gnostic in origin: It mirrors heresies already condemned in the earliest centuries of Christianity.
• Destructive to the gospel: It undermines the doctrines of sin, salvation, and judgment.

This teaching is not merely wrong — it is spiritually dangerous and draws people away from the truth of God’s Word, replacing it with mystical speculation and occult philosophy masquerading as revelation.

Refuting the Soul-Based Inheritance Doctrine of the Seventh Covenant: A Biblical and Theological Critique

Refutation of the “Soul World” Doctrine and the Reinterpretation of Jesus’ Words

1. Misuse of Al-Haft Al-Shareef and the “Shadows” Doctrine

The quote attributed to Imam Ja’far Al-Sadiq in Al-Haft Al-Shareef refers to a speculative esoteric teaching about pre-existent souls in a “shadow world” who are then paired with bodies, and whose spiritual pairings override biological family ties. This Gnostic-style doctrine, however, has no foundation in the Bible, the Torah, or sound Islamic theology. It stems from a mystical metaphysical framework more in line with Neoplatonism and pre-Islamic Gnosticism, which were rejected by both biblical prophets and Quranic revelation.

• The idea of a “shadow realm” where souls were pre-matched is pagan in origin and parallels the teachings of Plato’s Theory of Forms and Gnostic cosmologies—not the monotheistic God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
• In biblical theology, souls do not exist eternally in a pre-incarnate realm. Rather, God creates each soul individually (Zechariah 12:1), and man becomes a living soul at conception, not before (Genesis 2:7).

2. Twisting Jesus’ Teaching in Matthew 12:46–50

The claim that Jesus promoted this “soul family” idea when He redefined His family in Matthew 12:46–50 is a misuse of Scripture. Let’s examine Jesus’ words in context:

“Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:48–50)

Jesus’ statement:

• Does not deny biological family ties. He cared for His mother (John 19:26–27) and had brothers (e.g., James and Jude).
• Instead, He affirms that spiritual kinship is based on obedience to God, not mystical soul-pairings in an unseen realm.
• This is not a metaphysical claim about pre-existent soul families, but a moral and theological emphasis: doing God’s will unites believers as the family of God (cf. Galatians 3:26–28).

The Ahmadi reinterpretation falsely inserts their metaphysical doctrine into a moral teaching. This is eisegesis—reading their own views into the text.

3. Invention of “Seventh Covenant” Jurisprudence

Claiming that a new jurisprudence based on soul-pairings has replaced earthly laws, including inheritance, undermines both Mosaic and New Covenant revelation.

• In the Bible, inheritance laws are clearly defined (e.g., Numbers 27, Deuteronomy 21:17) and never spiritualised into soul pairings.
• Jesus never annulled inheritance law, and Paul affirms lawful handling of family matters in 1 Timothy 5:8 and Galatians 4:1–7, in the context of salvation—not secret soul destinies.
• The so-called “Seventh Covenant” is not found anywhere in Scripture. The Bible only affirms the covenants with:
  • Adam (Genesis 3:15),
  • Noah (Genesis 9),
  • Abraham (Genesis 15, 17),
  • Moses (Exodus 19),
  • David (2 Samuel 7),
  • and finally the New Covenant in Christ (Jeremiah 31:31, Luke 22:20, Hebrews 8–10).

There is no prophesied “Seventh Covenant” where a future “Qaim” overrides physical family laws with esoteric soul laws.

4. Rebuttal of Inheritance According to “Shadow Pairing”

The statement that the Qaim will cause a man to inherit not from his physical brother but from his “paired” soul brother is unscriptural and unjust.

• Biblical inheritance was always linked to legal, biological ties—not mystical relationships. Even adoption (Romans 8:15) is legal and covenantal, not based on Gnostic soul doctrine.
• The New Testament metaphor of being heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17) is spiritual in nature, but does not nullify earthly inheritance law, which remains under civil jurisdiction (Romans 13:1–7).
• Any doctrine that abolishes legal rights of physical family members and reallocates them based on secret soul destinies is both oppressive and cultic.

5. Danger of Gnostic and Occult Syncretism

This teaching echoes the same dangerous mystical frameworks found in:

• The Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Judas, where hidden knowledge and pre-existence doctrines replace divine revelation.
• Islamic mysticism (Sufism) and Shia esotericism, which often borrow from Hellenistic and Zoroastrian cosmologies.
• The teachings of cults such as the Baháʼí Faith or Nation of Islam, which spiritualise laws and redefine Scripture allegorically.

The “Seventh Covenant” theology is part of a false gospel (Galatians 1:6–9), and its “Qaim” is a false messiah, leading souls away from the Gospel of Christ.

The Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light makes a bold claim that familial ties based on blood will be redefined by spiritual bonds in a future divine system governed by their Qaim and the so-called “Seventh Covenant.” Their argument attempts to blend Islamic texts, mystical interpretations, and an out-of-context citation of Jesus’ words in Matthew 12. Let us carefully analyse and biblically dismantle this claim.

The Argument Presented:

It was already revealed in the Holy Qur’an 1,400 years ago that true familial bonds are based on faith and not on biological relations, for God said: “Verily, the believers are siblings.”3 And Imam Ali (From Him is Peace) said: “Two true friends are a single soul in different bodies.”4 And Prophet Mohammed (PBUH & His Family) in the beginning of Islam set the basis for this new system of familial ties when he set up the brotherhood system between the companions. Prophet Mohammed (PBUH & His Family) paired between the Muhajireen and Ansar5 making it obligatory that each one help his brother, to the extent that the two new brothers could inherit from each other. But this condition was later abrogated with Allah’s saying: “But, according to the Book of Allah, the blood relations have a greater right on one another”6 and it was delayed to the time of the Qaim/Riser and the Seventh Covenant.

One day Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan (From Him is Peace) said to me, “Son, do you see these people here?”, pointing towards the buildings and people living in Badr, Egypt, across from home.
I said, “Yes.”
He (From Him is Peace) said, “Thirty years from now if there was to come someone and tell them that marrying your blood sibling is forbidden by God, they will stone him.”

Biblical Response: Spiritual Brotherhood Does Not Nullify Family Law

Firstly, the Bible does affirm spiritual brotherhood among believers, as Jesus taught:

“For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:50)

However, this verse is not a declaration of metaphysical soul unions or a replacement of biological family ties, nor does it imply a future system where physical inheritance laws are nullified. It is a moral and covenantal statement, not a mystical redefinition of kinship. Nowhere in the New Testament do we see Jesus advocating for the abrogation of family-based inheritance in favour of spiritual pairings.

Moreover, Jesus affirmed God’s commandments, including those involving family order:

• “Honour your father and your mother” (Matthew 19:19)
• “What God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matthew 19:6)
• He rebuked the Pharisees for breaking the commandment of honouring parents under the guise of “spiritual offerings” (Matthew 15:3–6)

These teachings affirm the sanctity of biological family structures, not their dissolution under a new mystical covenant.

Inheritance in the Bible: Covenant and Justice, Not Esotericism

Biblical inheritance laws are clear, just, and grounded in God’s revealed covenant with His people. Consider:

• Numbers 27: The daughters of Zelophehad petition Moses for their father’s inheritance. The Lord affirms their right under His law.
• Deuteronomy 21:15–17: The law mandates just inheritance, even among polygamous families, prioritising the rights of the firstborn son.
• Romans 8:17: Christians are heirs of God through Christ, by faith—not because of mystical soul bonds.

There is no biblical basis for inheritance based on soul pairing. All inheritance theology in Scripture revolves around legal covenant relationships, not speculative pre-existent “soul worlds.”

Refuting the “Seventh Covenant” and Its Claimed Delay of God’s Law

The argument that God temporarily allowed inheritance based on “spiritual brotherhood” (as allegedly practised between the Muhajireen and Ansar) but later abrogated it—only to revive it again in the time of the Qaim—is a convoluted, self-defeating doctrine.

• If God “abrogated” that system (as the Qur’an in Surah 33:6 supposedly indicates), then why would He reintroduce it later? This is doctrinal instability masquerading as esoteric wisdom.
• In the Bible, God’s law is consistent. While covenants progress (e.g., from the Mosaic to the New Covenant), God does not contradict Himself or regress into abolished systems (Psalm 19:7; Hebrews 13:8).

The Seventh Covenant claim, then, relies on the dangerous idea that divine law is fluid, manipulable by self-proclaimed “divine” figures like Ahmed Al-Hassan, who contradict both Scripture and reason.

Ahmed Al-Hassan’s Anecdote: Subjective Speculation, Not Divine Revelation

The story in which Ahmed Al-Hassan speculates that people will stone someone for forbidding incest in thirty years is a manipulative and chilling example of cultic mind-conditioning. It subtly implies that divine moral law (such as the prohibition of incest) is culturally relative and destined to be overturned.

However, incest is explicitly condemned by God in Scripture:

“None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 18:6)

This moral law precedes Moses, as seen in the condemnation of Lot’s daughters (Genesis 19), and it continues into the New Testament (1 Corinthians 5:1–5). Ahmed Al-Hassan’s speculative prophecy is not just unbiblical—it is dangerously antinomian.

False Authority and the Spirit of Antichrist

The Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light’s theology surrounding the Qaim and the Seventh Covenant is not simply mistaken; it is deeply heretical. It bears the hallmarks of Gnosticism, antinomianism, and a rejection of God’s revealed moral order.

“For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work…” (2 Thessalonians 2:7)
“They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient…” (Titus 1:16)

Ahmed Al-Hassan’s teachings—undermining God’s moral law, redefining familial structures, and enthroning himself as a new covenant-giver—are clear signs of a false prophet promoting a man-centred gospel.

The Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light further compounds its theological error with a deeply Gnostic and blasphemous claim:

“So it will be allowed to marry your blood sibling as it was for Abraham and Sarah, Enoch and Isis, and the children of Adam?” The Imam said, “Yes, what is not allowed is to marry your sibling in the soul world… In the soul world there is a family tree… Imam Ali and Fatimah Al-Zahra are at the base of the tree… Mohammed has children in the soul world, including Michael and Mary… Jesus is the father of Eve… Mary Magdalene is the soulmate of Jesus… Moses is the father of Elias, whose soulmate is Nefertiti…”

This bizarre mythology is a composite of paganism, Gnostic fantasy, Islamic folklore, and reinvented biblical characters, utterly divorced from the Word of God.

1. The Soul-World and Pre-Existent Incestuous Genealogies

The claim that Jesus is the father of Eve, or that Jesus’ soulmate is Mary Magdalene, is a sacrilegious invention. Scripture clearly teaches:

• Jesus Christ is eternally pre-existent as God (John 1:1–3) but was born as a man in history (John 1:14; Matthew 1:18–25).
• He had no earthly children, nor romantic partners. Claims of soulmates such as Mary Magdalene stem from Gnostic heresies and later occult texts, not canonical Scripture.

The suggestion that marrying your blood sibling will be allowed in a future divine system is not just false—it is evil.

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil…” (Isaiah 5:20)

Even Abraham and Sarah, despite being half-siblings (Genesis 20:12), lived before the codified law given at Sinai. But Leviticus 18:9 explicitly forbids such relationships forever. To revive and promote incest as a divine ideal is to promote moral lawlessness.

2. No ‘Soul Family Tree’ in Scripture—Only Earthly Genealogies with Purpose

Biblical genealogies are earthly and covenantal, not metaphysical. They are meant to:

• Trace the promised lineage of the Messiah (Matthew 1; Luke 3)
• Prove the legal and tribal authority of priests, kings, and prophets
• Uphold the honour and continuity of family and nation under God’s law

The supposed “soul family tree” with Fatimah Al-Zahra as the “mother of Mohammed” in the soul world, or Jesus as the father of Eve, is mythological speculation akin to Greek cosmology or Mandaean Gnosticism.

3. False Doctrine of Soul-World ‘Mehram’

The idea that only soul-world siblings are mehram (unmarriageable) is completely alien to biblical ethics. God’s moral law deals with real, earthly kinship—not mystical, unseen pairings.

“The secret things belong to the Lord… but the things revealed belong to us and our children forever.” (Deuteronomy 29:29)

To create marriage rules based on imagined pre-earthly soul relations is to descend into subjectivism, mysticism, and lawlessness.

4. Warning Against a Different Gospel

This system is another gospel altogether—blending fragments of Bible names with esoteric fables.

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8)

The so-called “Qaim” (Ahmed Al-Hassan) is presenting himself as the revealer of an entirely new moral universe, discarding biblical creation, marriage, law, and redemption in favour of his own cultic cosmology.

The soul family tree doctrine and the allowance of incest in a future paradise are not only false—they are doctrines of demons (1 Timothy 4:1). The Bible warns against such myth-making:

“Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.” (1 Timothy 4:7)

The true family of God is defined by faith in Jesus Christ, and it is marked by holiness, obedience, and truth (Hebrews 12:14; John 17:17). Let no Christian be seduced by the false revelations and occult genealogies of a self-appointed prophet whose doctrine is rooted in darkness, not light.

“For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace…” (1 Corinthians 14:33)

The concept of the “soul family” as presented by Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan introduces several theological ideas that deviate significantly from biblical doctrine. In this booklet, we will explore these ideas and offer a biblical critique of each claim, examining the theological errors and the reasons why they cannot be reconciled with Christian faith.

1. Reincarnation and Multiple Incarnations

Claim in the text: Souls come to this world “many times” in different incarnations, with different fathers, mothers, and siblings.

Biblical response:
The concept of reincarnation—the belief that souls are repeatedly reborn into different bodies—is foreign to the teachings of Scripture. Hebrews 9:27 is clear on this matter:

“And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”

This verse directly refutes the idea of reincarnation by affirming that each person lives once, dies, and then faces judgment. The Bible does not support the idea of a soul inhabiting multiple physical forms across different lives. The concept of reincarnation, as seen in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Gnostic mysticism, is not aligned with biblical teaching. Instead, the Bible emphasizes the finality of physical life and the certainty of judgment that follows.

2. The Idea of a “Soul Father” Different from One’s Earthly Father

Claim in the text: “Each soul has one father” in the soul world, which may not be the same as the earthly father.

Biblical response:
The claim that each soul has a “soul father” distinct from the earthly father has no biblical foundation. According to Scripture, the ultimate Father of all souls is God, who is the Creator of every person:

“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb” (Psalm 139:13).

While the Bible does acknowledge human fathers in the physical realm, it does not suggest the existence of a separate “soul father” in a pre-incarnate realm. Each soul originates from God, who forms the spirit within the body (Zechariah 12:1). The doctrine of a “soul father” independent of physical lineage is a Gnostic idea, not a biblical one.

3. Pre-Existence of Souls

Claim in the text: Souls exist in a “shadow” world before inhabiting physical bodies. These souls are chosen by God in a pre-earthly state.

Biblical response:
The Bible consistently teaches that souls do not pre-exist their earthly bodies. Souls are created by God at the time of conception, and they begin their existence within the creation of God’s design. Ecclesiastes 12:7 says:

“Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.”

There is no biblical support for the idea of pre-existing souls inhabiting a “shadow” realm before being born into physical bodies. This is a Gnostic belief, influenced by ancient heresies, which taught that human souls existed before their earthly birth. The Bible, in contrast, teaches that God creates the spirit within the body, rather than reusing or redistributing pre-existing souls.

4. Soul Replication or “Twin Souls”

Claim in the text: The “Mohammedan soul” can replicate into another twin soul, an identical copy of itself, which is still inferior to the original.

Biblical response:
The idea of soul replication or the existence of “twin souls” is entirely foreign to biblical doctrine. The Bible speaks of the unique creation of each individual soul:

“For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope” (Jeremiah 29:11).

Each person is uniquely created by God, and there is no biblical mention of souls replicating themselves or forming “twin copies.” The idea of a soul being replicated, especially in a lesser form, reflects occult ideas that diminish the sacred uniqueness of individual creation. Each soul is a special creation of God, not a mere copy or shadow of another.

5. The Identification of the “Qaim” Through Pre-Earthly Bonds

Claim in the text: The Qaim is identified by pre-incarnate spiritual relationships, such as the “brother” he inherits from the “Shadows.”

Biblical response:
The Bible teaches that Christ was identified through His earthly lineage and genealogy, fulfilling the promises made to the patriarchs. Matthew 1 and Luke 3 present the genealogies of Jesus, showing that His identity as the Messiah is rooted in the prophecies of the Old Testament.

In contrast, the idea of identifying the Qaim by pre-earthly spiritual bonds, such as inheriting from a “brother” in the “Shadows,” is foreign to the biblical understanding of prophecy. The Bible makes it clear that the Messiah would come through a physical, historical lineage (Isaiah 11:1), and there is no scriptural support for identifying individuals by non-physical or mystical criteria.

6. The Claim that a Modern Figure is the Reincarnation of a Past Imam

Claim in the text: Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan is implied to be the reincarnation or spiritual copy of Imam Al-Hussein.

Biblical response:
The claim that any modern individual can be a reincarnation of a past religious figure or divine being is blasphemous from a biblical perspective. Jesus Christ is the unique Son of God, and He alone is the fulfillment of all prophecies concerning the Messiah (Matthew 1:23, John 14:6). The Bible makes it clear that Jesus was and is the One and only Savior, with no room for reincarnation or the appearance of messianic figures in different forms over time.

In fact, Jesus warned against false messiahs:

“For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Matthew 24:24).

To claim that a modern individual embodies the soul or spirit of a past religious figure, especially in a messianic or divine context, is a false prophecy and goes against the clear teachings of Scripture.

In the theological teachings of Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan (From Him is Peace) and his followers, there is a controversial doctrine that asserts the “incarnation” of certain holy figures, particularly from the family of the Prophet Muhammad. This belief proposes that several prominent Islamic and biblical figures are in fact incarnations or “copies” of others, often blending various personalities and souls into a unified narrative. These concepts are rooted in esoteric and Gnostic traditions rather than orthodox Islamic or Christian doctrine.

The Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light claims that Imam Ali, whom Shia Islam reveres as the first Imam, is also an incarnation of several other religious figures, including his descendants and other prominent figures. This claim goes against the Christian understanding of individual identity and divine calling.

Christianity teaches that each individual, including biblical figures, has a unique and divinely appointed role in God’s plan. The concept of “incarnation” as suggested by this movement undermines the biblical view that every person is distinct and has a specific purpose in God’s design. The Bible affirms that Jesus Christ alone is the incarnation of God, and no other figure can occupy this unique role (John 1:14; Colossians 2:9).

The Incarnations of Imam Hassan

Imam Hassan, the second Imam in Shia Islam, is also claimed by the Ahmadi Religion to have incarnations in figures such as Imam Ja’far Al-Sadiq (the Sixth Imam) and Imam Hassan Al-Askari (the Eleventh Imam). This claim is not supported by any biblical teachings or Christian traditions. Christianity maintains that each person is uniquely created by God with a specific role to fulfill, and the idea of “incarnating” in other individuals contradicts this principle.

Jesus Christ is the only one in Christian theology who embodies both divine and human natures, making His incarnation a singular and unrepeatable event in history. No other person in biblical history, including any of the apostles, saints, or prophets, can claim to have had the same divine role as Jesus (Hebrews 10:12).

The Incarnations of Imam Hussein

The Ahmadi Religion further claims that Imam Hussein, the third Imam, has incarnations in figures like Imam Musa Al-Kadhim (the Seventh Imam) and Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan. Such claims diminish the unique significance of Hussein’s martyrdom, which is considered a pivotal event in both Islamic and Shia tradition.

Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is the ultimate and final act of atonement for sin (Hebrews 10:10-14). The concept of reincarnation, as it is presented in the Ahmadi Religion, undermines the biblical doctrine that Jesus’ death was the one and only sacrifice for all sin. Each individual, according to Scripture, has a unique calling and destiny, and no one else can fulfill the role of Christ (Hebrews 9:28).

The Mahdi and the Concept of the Twelve Mahdis

A central element of the Ahmadi Religion is the concept of the Mahdi, a messianic figure who is said to be the fulfillment of various prophetic promises. In this movement, Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan is proclaimed to be the first Mahdi, with the existence of additional Mahdis coming from the same line of divine figures.

In Christian theology, however, the second coming of Christ is the pivotal and final event in the redemption of humanity (Matthew 24:30). The Bible is clear that there is only one Christ, and His return will bring an end to the age and the final judgment. There is no place for multiple Mahdis or incarnations of Christ-like figures in Christian eschatology (Revelation 22:20).

The Incarnations of Prophets and Other Figures

The Ahmadi Religion also claims that various biblical prophets, such as Joseph, Moses, and Abraham, are incarnations of other figures or are represented in the souls of future leaders. This view conflicts with the Christian doctrine that each prophet and individual has a unique and irreplaceable role in God’s redemptive plan.

Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of all prophetic promises, and He is the only one who embodies the fullness of God’s revelation (Hebrews 1:1-2). The claim that multiple individuals or souls could embody the roles of these figures distorts the uniqueness of God’s plan of salvation.

Spiritual Elevation and the Alienation from Family

Another teaching of the Ahmadi Religion is the idea that individuals who experience spiritual elevation may become alienated from their biological families, particularly if their families do not accept the teachings of Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan. This is a deviation from the biblical teaching on family life.

In Christianity, while it is true that following Christ may bring division, the Bible also teaches that believers should honor their parents and families (Ephesians 6:1-3). The Christian faith emphasizes reconciliation, love, and respect for family, even in the face of spiritual differences (Romans 12:18). The idea of alienation from one’s family for the sake of spiritual elevation is not a biblical concept and runs counter to the teachings of Christ, who calls His followers to love their neighbors, including family members.

Conclusion

The Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light’s doctrine of “incarnations” is not compatible with the Christian faith. The idea of reincarnation or “soul transference,” as applied to figures like Imam Ali, Imam Hassan, Imam Hussein, and others, undermines the distinctiveness of each person’s divine purpose as taught in the Bible.

Christian theology teaches that Jesus Christ is the unique and final incarnation of God, and no other figure in history can fulfill His divine role. The doctrines of the Ahmadi Religion, including the belief in multiple Mahdis and the notion of the “incarnation” of prophets, are not supported by Scripture and are contrary to the central message of the Christian gospel.

As Christians, we affirm that Jesus Christ is the only Savior, and He alone fulfills all prophetic promises. No person or movement can replace or re-interpret His role in God’s redemptive plan. The idea of multiple incarnations or messianic figures, as seen in the teachings of the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light, is a distortion of biblical truth and represents a deviation from the Christian understanding of salvation history.

The post Refutation of Chapter 11 (‘Door Number Elevn’) of Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq’s Book, “The Gospel of the Riser of the Family of Mohammed” appeared first on UK Apologetics Library.

Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq, Jan. 1, 2025 By AimanAbir18plus – Own work, CC BY 4.0, Wikipedia

Back

Introduction

In Chapter 7, titled “Door Number Seven,” of The Seventh Covenant with Ahmed Al-Hassan, Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq claims that Ahmed Al-Hassan is the divine ruler of a new Edenic kingdom, the fulfillment of all previous prophetic covenants. This chapter promotes a radically unbiblical doctrine that not only distorts key aspects of Christian theology but also elevates Ahmed Al-Hassan to a position that the Bible reserves solely for Jesus Christ. The purpose of this article is to critically examine and refute these claims using biblical and historical arguments.

1. The Claim: A “Living King on Earth”

“The kingdom has appeared. There is now a living King on Earth who must be obeyed. He is not just a representative; he is the divine manifestation of God’s authority, ruling as a visible vicegerent.”

Expansion & Refutation:

The claim that a “living King on Earth” has arrived, who is not merely a representative but a “divine manifestation,” strikes at the very heart of Christian eschatology. Throughout the Bible, the concept of God’s kingdom is described in two stages: a present, spiritual reality and a future, physical fulfillment. Jesus inaugurated the kingdom with His first coming, but the fullness of the kingdom will only be realized at His return (Luke 17:21; Revelation 11:15).

1. Christ’s Heavenly Reign: In the New Testament, Jesus is portrayed as seated at the right hand of God, ruling from heaven and interceding for His people (Hebrews 1:3). No other man is ever given the title of “King” on Earth in this sense. Any claim to a present, visible earthly king, especially one who is seen as divine, directly contradicts the central tenet of Christian belief that Jesus Christ is the eternal King.
2. Theological Implications of Earthly Kingship: The statement that Ahmed Al-Hassan is the “divine manifestation of God’s authority” is an extreme claim that contradicts Christian doctrine. In Christian theology, Jesus alone is the manifestation of God’s authority on earth (John 1:14; Colossians 2:9). To suggest that any human being, especially one who is not Jesus, could embody God’s authority on earth is a dangerous deviation from biblical orthodoxy.
3. Idolatry and Man-worship: The designation of a “visible vicegerent” introduces the potential for idolatry. In Scripture, the role of vicegerent—one who acts as a steward on behalf of God—belongs solely to Christ. Hebrews 2:8 tells us that Christ will one day put all things under His feet, but until then, He alone holds that role. To elevate any man to such a position is to blur the line between creator and creature, potentially leading to man-worship, which is forbidden in the Bible (Exodus 20:4–5).

2. The Claim: Defiance of the King is Defiance of God

“He is the return of divine justice; he holds the sceptre of the Father. Whoever defies him has defied God Himself.”

Expansion & Refutation:

The idea that defiance against Ahmed Al-Hassan equals defying God is not only an unbiblical teaching, it is also a manifestation of spiritual tyranny.

1. The Sceptre of Christ: In Scripture, the sceptre is a symbol of the Messiah’s kingship, yet it is never attributed to any figure other than Christ. Hebrews 1:8 makes clear that the sceptre belongs to Jesus: “But of the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of Your kingdom.'” The use of the sceptre by a human being in this context is a theological misstep that misidentifies who holds the true authority.
2. Jesus is the Sole Bringer of Justice: Jesus is the only one who can execute divine justice. Scripture repeatedly emphasizes that ultimate justice is God’s alone to administer (Romans 12:19). Jesus’ second coming will establish justice in the world (Revelation 19:11–16). To attribute this role to someone else undermines the unique role of Christ as the ultimate judge (John 5:22).
3. Idolatry of Allegiance: The claim that defying this “king” is equivalent to defying God blurs the boundary between the Creator and created beings. It fosters a cult-like structure where blind obedience is demanded to a human leader, not the true and living God. This undermines the personal relationship believers have with Christ and redirects their allegiance away from Him.

3. The Claim: Ahmed Al-Hassan as the Embodiment of the Seventh Covenant

“He is the embodiment of the Seventh Covenant, the final unveiling of divine truth hidden since the beginning of creation.”

Expansion & Refutation:

The claim that Ahmed Al-Hassan is the embodiment of a “Seventh Covenant” presents a theological issue. Scripture speaks of the New Covenant instituted by Christ, not a “seventh” or additional covenants.

1. The Finality of the New Covenant: The Bible teaches that the New Covenant, established by Christ through His death, is final and sufficient. Hebrews 8:6–13 emphasizes that this covenant is superior to all previous covenants and that there will be no need for a new covenant after it. Any claim to a “seventh covenant” is a distortion of this fundamental teaching and constitutes a rejection of the sufficiency of Christ’s work on the cross.
2. Gnostic Overtones: The language used—describing divine truth as “hidden since the beginning of creation”—echoes Gnostic teachings, where knowledge (gnosis) is believed to be hidden and only accessible to a select few. The Bible warns against this type of hidden knowledge (Colossians 2:8). The revelation of God’s truth has been made public in Christ, and there is no further hidden truth to unveil (John 14:6; 1 Corinthians 2:9–10).
3. Christ as the Ultimate Revelation: Hebrews 1:1–2 says that God has spoken to us through His Son, the final revelation of His truth. There is no further “unveiling” necessary because Christ’s work on the cross is complete and final (John 19:30). Any claim to a new, superior revelation not found in Christ must be rejected.

4. The Claim: “I Do Not Die”

“Even if I die, I do not die. Even if I disappear, I do not disappear. For I am in you, and you are in me, and we are in Him.”

Expansion & Refutation:

This statement, claiming eternal life despite physical death, is a bold and unbiblical assertion. While Jesus’ words about eternal life are true for all believers (John 10:28), the claim that any human, especially Ahmed Al-Hassan, could possess such omnipresence and eternal life apart from Christ is heretical.

1. The Exclusivity of Christ’s Death and Resurrection: Jesus is the only one who has the power to defeat death (1 Corinthians 15:20–22). While Christians share in Christ’s resurrection, it is always in Christ, never apart from Him. Jesus’ death and resurrection are the foundation of eternal life, and no other man can claim to have this power on his own.
2. Misuse of John 17: The phrase “I am in you, and you are in me” mirrors the unity Christ prays for with His followers in John 17:21, but it is misused here. Jesus speaks of His relationship with the Father and His followers, not of some individual person. The application of this to Ahmed Al-Hassan is a distortion of the biblical concept of spiritual union with Christ.
3. Christ’s Omnipresence: The claim to be “in you, and you are in me” suggests an omnipresence that is uniquely attributed to Christ and the Holy Spirit, not to any human leader. While believers are in Christ and He in them, this union is spiritual and is mediated by the Holy Spirit (John 14:17–20), not through the human leader of any movement.

5. The Claim: Replacement by Future Figures

“You will be replaced in one condition only, if my Father and Master Mohammed (PBUH & His Family) replaces me… and if Mohammed ibn Al-Hassan (PBUH & His Family) got replaced.”

Expansion & Refutation:

The idea that one’s spiritual position is contingent on the succession of leaders is not a biblical concept. The New Testament emphasizes that Christ is the sole mediator between God and mankind (1 Timothy 2:5).

1. Christ’s Unchanging Priesthood: Hebrews 7:24 teaches that Christ’s priesthood is eternal and unchanging. He does not need to be replaced, nor does He appoint any human mediator in the way described here.
2. Danger of Succession Claims: The notion of a divinely-appointed replacement challenges the sufficiency of Christ’s completed work. Jesus’ death and resurrection were once-for-all acts (Hebrews 9:26). No human being is in a position to replace Christ’s authority or mediatorship.

Conclusion:

The claims made in Chapter 7 of The Seventh Covenant are a blatant distortion of Christian doctrine. They misappropriate the titles, roles, and functions that belong solely to Jesus Christ, and they distort the biblical understanding of the kingdom, the covenants, and eternal life. The “Seventh Covenant” is a fabricated concept, leading people away from the true gospel and the sufficiency of Christ’s work on the cross.

As Christians, we must hold fast to the truth that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises. He is the King, the High Priest, and the eternal Mediator. There is no further revelation or mediator needed beyond Him.

The post Refutation of Chapter 7 (‘Door Number Seven’) of Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq’s Book, “The Seventh Covenant with Ahmed Al-Hassan” appeared first on UK Apologetics Library.

Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq, Jan. 1, 2025 By AimanAbir18plus – Own work, CC BY 4.0, Wikipedia

Back

Introduction

In Chapter 8, “Door Number Eight – The Celestial Bodies,” of The Seventh Covenant, Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq promotes a theological cosmology deeply rooted in astrology, apocryphal texts, and speculative metaphysics. This chapter introduces doctrines that equate stars with souls, misinterpret the Gospel of Judas, and advance teachings about astrological determinism that directly contradict the Bible. This response will analyse and refute each section using biblical truth and sound theological reasoning, aimed at a biblically literate audience.

1. Admiration of the Stars and Planetary Worship

Al-Sadiq begins by romanticising the ancient admiration of stars and planets, stating:

“Ever since the dawn of man, the children of Adam have always looked towards the sky and admired the stars. They knew there was something more to those beautiful lights, that they were not random and had deeper meanings… Some even built their cities to mimic their appearance in the night skies.”

While it is true that ancient civilisations engaged in astronomical studies and celestial worship, Scripture consistently condemns this as idolatry. The Law of Moses warns:

“And lest you lift up your eyes unto heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, even all the host of heaven, you should be driven to worship them…” (Deuteronomy 4:19, KJV)

God created the celestial bodies for signs, seasons, days, and years—not for worship or spiritual insight (Genesis 1:14). The fascination with stars turning into spiritual guides is not an endorsement by God, but a consequence of man’s fallen imagination.

2. Eve’s Vision of Lights as Angels

He claims that in “Door One,” Eve looked up and saw two lights—stars—interpreted as angels:

“Eve, the mother of mankind, upon seeing the two lights in the sky, recognised them as angelic beings, her heart drawn to their divine presence.”

There is no biblical evidence supporting this view. This concept is rooted in gnostic mysticism rather than Scripture. The Bible teaches that God communicates through His word and through His prophets—not via symbolic star-gazing (Hebrews 1:1-2).

3. The Al-Haft Al-Shareef and Stars as Believers

Al-Sadiq quotes Imam Ja’far Al-Sadiq:

“Those are the light bodies that were made for the believers from their works, and they are the stars which roam in the sky, shining in the heavens. Each true believer has a star representing his soul.”

This Islamic mystical claim redefines celestial bodies as the glorified forms of believers. But Scripture teaches that believers will be bodily resurrected and transformed into incorruptible beings, not celestial objects:

“It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body…” (1 Corinthians 15:44)

Stars are part of the inanimate creation (Psalm 8:3). Associating them with human souls or resurrected bodies is doctrinally absurd and metaphysically gnostic.

4. The Gospel of Judas and ‘Your Star Has Led You Astray’

Al-Sadiq draws heavily from the Gospel of Judas, quoting Jesus allegedly saying:

“Your star has led you astray, Judas. You will not ascend with the others.”

The Gospel of Judas is a Gnostic gospel, written in the second century AD, long after the apostles. It was condemned by early Christians for its heresies. The canonical Scriptures never associate stars with human souls or destinies. Instead, they declare:

“There shall not be found among you… an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch… For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord.” (Deuteronomy 18:10-12)

Jesus did not teach astrological fatalism. He rebuked signs-seeking (Matthew 16:4) and affirmed that man’s heart—not his star—leads him astray (Mark 7:21-23).

5. Claim: “Every person who has a soul has a star”

Al-Sadiq concludes:

“Clearly, Jesus (PBUH) says that every person who has a soul has a star and that the stars of the people can be seen plainly in the sky, although they are cloaked to the vision of the blind.”

This is a gross misrepresentation. The canonical Gospels never present such a doctrine. The soul is not tied to a celestial object. Instead, the Bible declares that God forms the spirit of man within him (Zechariah 12:1), and the destiny of man is in God’s hand—not in the movement of the stars.

6. Astrology from Idris (Enoch) and Post-Solar Reversal Confusion

Al-Sadiq claims:

“This was true before the sun returned for Joshua son of Nun and Ali the Prince of the Believers. The stars were in perfect harmony, and astrologers understood them. But after the reversal of the sun, astrologers have become confused.”

This interpretation mixes biblical miracles (Joshua 10:13) with Islamic mystical traditions. There is no biblical endorsement of astrology before or after the miracle of the sun standing still. God does not use stars for prophetic time-keeping or horoscopic calculations.

7. The Prophet Who Used Stars for Death Predictions

The narrative goes on to describe a prophet who knew births and deaths based on star movements:

“Then God Almighty revealed to the sun, the moon, and the stars to run in that water, and in it was written every birth and every death. The prophet could read them, for he was taught the language of the stars.”

This story, quoted from Bihar Al-Anwar, contradicts biblical principles. God explicitly forbids using divination or omens for predicting life events (Leviticus 19:26, Deuteronomy 18:10-14). He alone knows the days of a man (Job 14:5).

The idea that David’s opponents used star charts to outwit him contradicts biblical accounts of David’s victories through God’s favour and obedience, not cosmic manipulation.

8. The Stars Foretold the Births of Prophets?

Al-Sadiq also asserts:

“In every age, the wise ones who could read the stars knew of the coming of God’s appointed ones. The births of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (PBUT) were all predicted by people who could read their coming in the stars. The knowledge of the stars was a divine science, given first to Idris (Enoch), then passed down through the purified ones.”

This teaching denies divine sovereignty. God sends His messengers by direct calling and foreordination (Jeremiah 1:5). The Magi were guided by a star in Matthew 2:2, but this was a unique supernatural sign—not proof of astrology. Nowhere does Scripture teach that star-reading is a legitimate prophetic tool.

9. The ‘Star of Eden’ and Occult Parallels

Al-Sadiq introduces the idea of the “Star of Eden”—a pre-Adamic celestial body representing an immortal state—implying that access to eternal knowledge and divine status is linked to regaining this astral connection. He writes:

“The Star of Eden was the first created light of purity. Before man fell, his essence resonated with the frequency of that Star. This is why the return to Eden is not just a journey across time but a recalibration of the soul back to its celestial origin.”

He further states:

“Those who follow the Mahdi will reconnect with the Edenic star. Their spirits will shine once again with the original light, beyond time, beyond the veil, in oneness with the divine star.”

This teaching mirrors Luciferian and occult traditions which promote the idea of humanity returning to a pre-fall ‘godlike’ condition through esoteric enlightenment and celestial unity. The doctrine of returning to a lost Eden through cosmic realignment is not only unbiblical but spiritually dangerous.

However, the Bible utterly refutes such doctrines. The fall of man was not a loss of cosmic ascension but a moral rebellion against God’s direct command (Genesis 3:6). Redemption is not found in reconnecting to mythical stars or lost celestial realms, but in repentance and faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:24–26). The promise of restoration is spiritual and rooted in Christ’s atonement, not the reclaiming of an astrological archetype.

Moreover, this “Star of Eden” concept closely resembles the New Age and theosophical idea of “ascended masters” or “inner light,” which Scripture condemns as doctrines of devils masquerading as light:

“And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” (2 Corinthians 11:14)

There is no biblical “star of Eden.” The Eden of Scripture was a real garden on Earth, and its restoration is described not through astral gateways, but through the redemptive reign of Christ in the new heavens and new earth (Revelation 21:1–4).

The Cult of Celestial Determinism

Chapter 8 of The Seventh Covenant substitutes the revealed will of God with speculative gnostic mysticism. It borrows heavily from apocryphal writings, misrepresents biblical figures, and promotes astrology as divine truth.

But Scripture is unequivocal:

“Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee… Behold, they shall be as stubble.” (Isaiah 47:13–14)

The teachings in this chapter are not from Christ, the apostles, or the prophets, but from the doctrines of devils (1 Timothy 4:1). True wisdom is not in the stars, but in fearing the Lord (Proverbs 9:10).

May all believers reject this celestial deception and return to the unshakeable foundation of the Word of God.

Refutation of Heretical Beliefs about Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan and Mars
1. The Alleged Identification of Mars as the Red Planet and a Divine Entity

Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan’s claim that Mars, the Red Planet, has a divine connection, as well as its association with war and conflict, is rooted in the belief that celestial bodies possess divine power or significance. This assertion implies a spiritual or mystical connection to human affairs, which contradicts the biblical worldview. The Bible teaches that celestial bodies, including planets and stars, were created for specific purposes, but not as divine entities.

The Cosmic Order and God’s Sovereignty Over Creation

The book of Genesis gives a clear account of the creation of celestial bodies. In Genesis 1:14-18, God establishes the sun, moon, and stars as “lights in the firmament” for the purpose of dividing day from night and marking time. They serve as signs for seasons, days, and years. The passage doesn’t suggest that these celestial objects possess inherent spiritual power or divine status. Instead, they function within the created order, under God’s sovereign control. The Bible does not support the notion that Mars, or any other planet, holds intrinsic divine significance.

Rejection of Astrology and Celestial Influence

Astrological beliefs, which often associate specific planets with characteristics or divine influence, have been prominent in various cultures throughout history. However, Scripture unequivocally rejects the idea that planets or stars govern human destiny. In Deuteronomy 4:19, God warns the Israelites against worshipping the sun, moon, and stars, explicitly stating that they were given to the nations under heaven but are not to be objects of worship. This warning directly challenges the idea that Mars has any divine influence on human lives.

Isaiah 47:13-14 further condemns the practice of astrology, describing astrologers and stargazers as powerless in the face of divine judgment. The Bible consistently teaches that human lives are not determined by the movements of celestial bodies, but by the will of God alone.

Mars as a Symbol of Conflict, Not a Divine Entity

In biblical symbolism, war and conflict are often associated with human sin and rebellion, not with celestial bodies. The notion that Mars embodies war and conflict is not rooted in Scripture but in ancient myths and occult traditions. The Bible portrays war as a consequence of human disobedience, not a planetary characteristic. For example, in James 4:1-2, the apostle James writes, “From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?” Here, conflict is portrayed as a result of human desires, not the influence of any celestial body.

2. The Claim that Stars and Planets Have Souls

Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan’s teaching that stars and planets possess souls is a clear departure from biblical doctrine. The Bible teaches that only human beings and certain angels have souls, not inanimate objects or celestial bodies.

The Uniqueness of Human Beings in Creation

Genesis 2:7 presents the creation of humanity: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” This unique creation of humanity highlights that the breath of life, a soul, is something given directly by God. No such teaching is found in Scripture concerning celestial bodies. The idea that stars or planets have souls contradicts the biblical understanding of the created order.

The Problem of Idolatry

Romans 1:25 condemns the idolatry of worshipping created things rather than the Creator: “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.” The belief that celestial bodies are alive and have influence over human affairs is a form of idolatry, a false worship that elevates creation to a divine status. In this context, the worship of Mars or any planet as a divine entity is a direct violation of the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3).

The Idolatrous Nature of Celestial Worship

Deuteronomy 4:19 makes it clear that celestial bodies are not to be worshipped. This echoes throughout Scripture, such as in Jeremiah 8:2 and Zephaniah 1:5, where the worship of the sun, moon, and stars is denounced. Celestial bodies were created for specific functions, but they are not to be regarded as divine or given the power to influence human lives. The belief that they possess souls is an erroneous and dangerous teaching that leads individuals into spiritual bondage.

3. The Claim that Humans and Celestial Bodies Are Connected in a Mystical or Deterministic Way

The teaching that human lives and actions are controlled by celestial bodies, such as Mars, is in direct opposition to the biblical doctrine of free will and personal responsibility.

The Doctrine of Free Will

The Bible teaches that human beings have the free will to choose between good and evil, as seen in Deuteronomy 30:19: “I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.” This passage emphasizes the role of personal choice in determining one’s destiny. The influence of Mars or any other celestial body is not the determinant of human life according to biblical theology.

God’s Sovereign Control Over Human Affairs

Proverbs 16:9 declares, “A man’s heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps.” While human beings may make plans, it is ultimately God who directs the course of human events. The idea that the movements of planets or stars dictate the course of one’s life diminishes God’s sovereignty and undermines the biblical teaching of divine providence.

Theological Considerations: Determinism vs. Providence

The biblical concept of divine providence teaches that God is actively involved in the lives of His people, guiding them according to His will and purpose. The idea that celestial bodies determine human destiny introduces a form of determinism that is incompatible with the Bible’s teaching on free will. This notion also opens the door to fatalism, where individuals may feel powerless to change their circumstances, as their lives are dictated by external, uncontrollable forces.

4. The Claim that Adam Is the Earth and That the Soul of Iblis (Satan) Is the Star Sirius

Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan’s belief that Adam is the Earth and that the star Sirius represents the soul of Iblis (Satan) draws from Gnostic and occult teachings that are foreign to biblical Christianity.

The Biblical View of Creation

Genesis 2:7 makes it clear that Adam was formed from the dust of the ground, not that the Earth itself is a living soul. The earth is a created entity, but it is not equated with humanity. The distinction between creation and Creator is fundamental to biblical theology. The idea that Adam is the Earth is a misunderstanding of Scripture and a distortion of the creation narrative.

The Rejection of Gnostic Beliefs

Gnosticism, which influenced many heretical teachings, held that the material world was inherently evil and that divine truth could only be understood through secret knowledge. The concept that the soul of Satan could be associated with a star like Sirius is deeply rooted in Gnostic thought, not biblical Christianity. In contrast, the Bible teaches that Satan was originally created as a good angel but fell due to pride (Isaiah 14:12-15). The fall of Lucifer is depicted as a moral and spiritual rebellion, not as a cosmic event tied to any celestial body.

5. The Connection Between Celestial Worship and Heresy

The worship of celestial bodies and the attribution of divine power to planets and stars is condemned throughout the Bible. This form of idolatry has been a recurring issue in many cultures, and the Bible consistently warns against it.

Theological Reflections on Idolatry

Idolatry is one of the most severe sins in the Bible, and it is often associated with the rejection of the one true God in favor of false gods or created things. The apostle Paul, in Romans 1:23-25, condemns those who “changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” The belief in celestial bodies as gods or divine entities falls into this category of idolatry.

The Historical Background of Celestial Worship

Throughout history, many civilizations have worshipped the sun, moon, stars, and planets as gods. Ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, and Greek cultures were steeped in astrology and celestial worship. The Bible condemns such practices, emphasizing that the heavens declare the glory of God, not the power of the celestial bodies themselves (Psalm 19:1-6). The creation of the sun, moon, and stars was to bring light and order to creation, not to be worshipped.

Refuting the Doctrine of Reincarnation (Raj’a) in Light of Biblical Teachings

Introduction

In the book The Seventh Covenant with Ahmed Al-Hassan, Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq presents a doctrine of reincarnation, termed Raj’a, which claims that souls will return to the world in bodies during the appearance of the Qaim, or the “Riser”. This concept is rooted in certain Shiite traditions, specifically within the context of the sayings of the Imams of the family of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him). One such narration from Imam Ja’far Al-Sadiq states, “Whoever does not believe in our Return is not from us,” which is used to emphasize the essential nature of the Raj’a. According to this view, at the time of the Qaim’s return, individuals will be given the choice to join him or remain in their graves, implying a form of reincarnation.

However, as we examine this doctrine in the light of Scripture, we find that the concept of reincarnation is not supported by the Bible. The Christian doctrine of resurrection differs significantly from the notion of reincarnation, which implies multiple cycles of rebirth. In this response, we will refute the doctrine of Raj’a using biblical principles, emphasizing the finality and hope of resurrection as taught in Christian Scripture.

The Biblical View of Resurrection: One Life, One Death

The Bible clearly teaches that humans live once and die once, followed by judgment. The concept of reincarnation, as presented in the doctrine of Raj’a, contradicts this clear biblical teaching.

Hebrews 9:27
“Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.”

This verse directly opposes the notion of reincarnation. According to Hebrews 9:27, there is no repeated cycle of life and death, but rather a singular, appointed time for death followed by judgment. The idea of souls returning to live again in different bodies is absent in the New Testament and is incompatible with the Christian doctrine of resurrection.

Luke 16:19-31
In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus describes two individuals who die and are immediately assigned to their eternal destinations—one to Abraham’s bosom and the other to torment. The rich man pleads for a second chance to warn his brothers, but Abraham answers, “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.” (Luke 16:29). There is no indication of reincarnation here, only an immediate judgment after death and a fixed eternal outcome.

John 5:28-29
“Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.”

Jesus speaks of a future resurrection where all the dead will rise, but there is no indication that they will return to life repeatedly or be reincarnated. The resurrection here is a one-time event that leads to eternal life or condemnation, not a cyclical return to the physical world.

The Finality of Resurrection in Christian Doctrine

The doctrine of resurrection is central to the Christian faith, but it stands in stark contrast to the doctrine of reincarnation. Resurrection, according to Scripture, refers to the restoration of the body to eternal life or judgment, not a cyclical process of death and rebirth.

1 Corinthians 15:22-23
“For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.”

Paul explains that resurrection is not an endless cycle but occurs at the return of Christ. Christians believe that at the end of time, there will be a single resurrection for all believers, followed by eternal life with Christ. There is no basis in the Bible for a repeating cycle of lives or for souls returning to earth as taught in the concept of Raj’a.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
“For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.”

This passage reinforces the idea of a single, final resurrection of the dead, followed by the gathering of the faithful with Christ. There is no suggestion of multiple returns or the concept of Raj’a. The resurrection is portrayed as a one-time event when Christ returns, distinct from the idea of cyclical reincarnation.

The Importance of Christ’s Resurrection as the Model

In Christian theology, the resurrection of Jesus Christ serves as the ultimate proof of the resurrection of the dead. Jesus’ resurrection is a one-time event that guarantees the resurrection of believers at His return. His resurrection is not a reincarnation, nor is it repeated; it is a once-for-all event that has eternal significance.

Romans 6:9-10
“For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.”

Christ’s resurrection was not a return to a previous life, but a victory over death, providing the model for believers’ future resurrection. This finality contradicts the Raj’a concept, which relies on the idea of souls repeatedly returning to the earth.

No Biblical Basis for the Return of Believers in the Same Bodies

The concept of Raj’a, where believers are told that they will have the option to return to the world at the time of the Qaim’s appearance, is foreign to biblical teaching. The Bible does not support the idea that believers will return in the same bodies after death.

1 Corinthians 15:42-44
“So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable; it is raised imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.”

Paul makes it clear that the resurrection body is different from the physical body. It is a spiritual body, not a return to the same mortal body. This distinction refutes the idea that souls will be reincarnated in their previous forms.

The doctrine of reincarnation (Raj’a), as presented in the teachings of Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq and the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light, finds no support in the Bible. The biblical teaching on resurrection is clear: humans live once, die once, and then face judgment. There is no biblical basis for the cyclical return of souls to the earth, as taught in the concept of Raj’a. The Christian hope rests in the promise of a single, final resurrection, where believers will be raised imperishable to eternal life with Christ. This hope is grounded in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which serves as the model for all future resurrections.

In contrast to the teachings of Raj’a, the Bible calls believers to look forward to a resurrection in which they will receive glorified bodies, not a return to a former life or reincarnation. Therefore, the concept of reincarnation in the Raj’a doctrine stands in contradiction to the biblical doctrine of resurrection and the finality of judgment.

Conclusion

Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan’s teachings regarding the divinity of Mars, the souls of celestial bodies, and the mystical connection between humans and planets stand in direct opposition to biblical doctrine. These beliefs promote idolatry, undermine human free will, and distort the biblical understanding of creation. The Bible consistently teaches that God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and that celestial bodies were made for specific purposes, but not as objects of worship or spiritual influence. The rejection of these heretical teachings is essential for maintaining a biblically faithful understanding of creation, sovereignty, and salvation.

The post A Theological and Scriptural Refutation of ‘Door Number Eight – The Celestial Bodies’ appeared first on UK Apologetics Library.

Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq, Jan. 1, 2025 By AimanAbir18plus – Own work, CC BY 4.0, Wikipedia

Back

By Mig Hayworth | UK Apologetics Library

At the very heart of The Seventh Covenant with Ahmed Al-Hassan lies an aggressive and totalitarian vision of religion—not one of unity through truth, but one of militant suppression of religious identity under the pretence of spiritual renewal. The authors of the text are open in their contempt for traditional religious authority and make deeply inflammatory accusations against all religious scholars—Muslim, Christian, and Jewish. The following quotation captures the aggressive posture of this cult’s core theology:

“Unfortunately, the sons of Satan that are on the Earth have taken religion as a means of controlling and oppressing people and have taken religion as a means to separate people and cause wars in the name of God. Due to the corruption of the teachings and words of the Prophets and Messengers, the sons of Satan, led by their non-working scholars, will fight the Qaim/Riser on his mission to unite humanity.” (p. 110)

This sweeping condemnation of all religious scholarship is not simply rhetorical. It undergirds a proposed eschatological battle against anyone who resists the movement’s theocratic dominion. The claim that Ahmed Al-Hassan is the Qaim (or “Riser”) leads directly into a theological justification for violence against dissenters:

“When Imam Mahdi emerges he shall not have a more clear enemy than the religious scholars… if it were not for the sword, the religious scholars would have issued decrees that he be killed, but God makes him appear with the sword and with generosity and kindness so that they may obey him and fear him and accept his judgment without believing in it, rather they hold within their hearts the opposite of belief.” (Yanabi’ Al-Mawadda, Vol. 3, p. 215)

Here, obedience to the “Mahdi” is enforced not by persuasion or spiritual conviction, but through fear and compulsion—a direct contradiction to the biblical gospel of salvation by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8–9) and the New Testament’s call to proclaim, not impose, the truth in love (2 Cor. 5:11, 14).

This cult’s totalitarianism is further revealed in a tradition they cite:

“If the Riser/Qaim emerges there shall not be between him and the Arabs and the Persians except for the sword.” (Bihar Al-Anwar, Vol. 52, p. 389)

It is clear from the context that the supposed mission to “unify all religions” is nothing short of a militarised purge of any form of dissent—whether religious, ethnic, or cultural. This is not a peaceful unification, but a theocratic coercion. Even followers of Ahmed Al-Hassan himself are not safe:

“The Qaim goes forth judging cases which some of his companions… reject… so the Riser/Qaim brings forth the men who objected and strikes their necks… and then he judges a third case… and it is the judgment of Abraham… then he judges a fourth case and it is by the judgment of Mohammed and none shall reject it.” (Bihar Al-Anwar, Vol. 52, p. 389)

This explicit endorsement of execution for disagreement, including followers who merely question his decrees, reveals a tyrannical and cultic spirit that is utterly contrary to biblical models of leadership and grace. Jesus Christ, by contrast, never forced people to follow Him at sword-point (John 6:66–69). His kingdom is “not of this world” (John 18:36).

While at first glance this chapter appears to condemn religious division and promote unity, the type of unity promoted here is not biblical unity grounded in truth, but rather an engineered unity under the banner of the so-called “Seventh Covenant” and submission to Ahmed Al-Hassan as a divine ruler. This is a dangerous redefinition of unity, subtly cloaked in spiritual language. The author, Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq, critiques division and separation within religions, yet he cleverly rebrands unity as allegiance to a new messianic figure—thereby weaponising the term unity to serve his own cultic agenda. The danger lies not only in the redefinition itself but in the emotional and rhetorical pressure applied to those who desire peace or who are weary of religious conflict. Followers are subtly manipulated into thinking that questioning or resisting this new form of unity is tantamount to resisting God’s will. In reality, biblical unity is always grounded in sound doctrine (Eph. 4:3–6; John 17:17), not in conformity to the personality or teachings of a self-appointed divine ruler. When unity is used as a euphemism for control and spiritual deception, it becomes a tool of enslavement, not reconciliation. This false unity masks authoritarianism beneath a veneer of spiritual harmony—therefore, it must be exposed and resisted.

5.1 The “New Matter” and Invented Religion of the Seventh Covenant

Ahmed Al-Hassan’s movement boldly proclaims that the religion he brings is not Islam in continuity with Muhammad, but something entirely new. As recorded in their own citations:

“The Qaim/Riser shall rise with a new matter, and a new book, and a new jurisprudence/rule which will be hard for the Arabs… He will come with a new religion which is difficult for the Arabs (to accept).” (Kitab Al-Ghayba, Vol. 1, p. 236)

This assertion fundamentally undermines Islamic orthodoxy itself, which affirms the finality of the Qur’an as the last revealed book. If Ahmed Al-Hassan introduces a new book, a new shariah, and a new religion, then by Islamic standards, he is an apostate. Even Imam Al-Baqir is quoted in the text saying:

“If the Riser/Qaim rises… he shall destroy everything that came before him, just as the Prophet of Allah did, and he shall establish a new Islam.” (Bihar Al-Anwar, Vol. 52)

This is theological innovation at its peak—tantamount to a self-declared prophet abrogating all previous revelations, including the Qur’an and the Shariah of Muhammad. For Christians, this is a warning: this movement does not simply oppose Christian theology; it dismantles and rewrites all sacred history, including the message of Christ, Moses, Abraham, and even Muhammad.

5.2 Anti-Jewish and Anti-Arabic Rhetoric Masquerading as “Unity”

The movement claims to be “uniting” all world religions, yet contradicts itself by blaming Jews, Arabs, Persians, and Hindus for not accepting their leader. Consider this passage:

“The racism and ignorance of most of the Arabs and Persians and their hatred of the Jews will make them take the Riser/Qaim as an enemy… The racism and ignorance of some of the Pakistani Muslims and their hatred of Hindus and Indians will make them take the Riser/Qaim as an enemy…” (p. 111)

Here, accusatory slurs are used in place of theological argument. The text constantly contradicts itself: on the one hand, claiming to revive all prophetic religions from Adam to today, and on the other, labelling all non-followers—including prior prophets’ followers—as racists or Satanic scholars.

Moreover, Ahmed Al-Hassan’s use of the Star of David and Hebrew language is leveraged not for unity, but to provoke outrage, as if criticism of these choices validates his role as a persecuted prophet:

“Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan started the Seventh Covenant by using the Star of David… the Arab and Muslim world’s reaction… they have accused their own Mahdi… of being an Israeli agent… This is due to their ignorance of Prophetic traditions.” (p. 111)

No evidence is provided that any Islamic tradition equates the Mahdi with the use of Jewish symbolism or Hebrew invocations. Instead, this is an intentional provocation, designed to produce outrage and thus “prove” that Ahmed Al-Hassan is the prophesied outcast.

5.3 A Theology of Apostasy and the Death of Religious Freedom

Perhaps the most dangerous claim in this entire chapter is that this new movement will invalidate all existing religions, laws, and covenants, and that only the “righteous souls” will be included in the new spiritual regime:

“This Seventh Covenant now is no longer based on physical ancestry… it is a Covenant between God and the souls instead, the righteous souls.” (p. 112)

But who determines what constitutes a “righteous soul”? The answer is clear from previous quotes: only those who submit to Ahmed Al-Hassan without question, under penalty of death. This is not salvation by grace, or even submission to divine law. It is blind obedience to a self-proclaimed ruler who intends to judge by Adam, David, and Muhammad, while simultaneously denouncing all those traditions.

This new religion is neither Jewish, Christian, nor Islamic. It is cultic messianism cloaked in the language of Abrahamic tradition. The Christian reader is reminded that Jesus warned of false prophets who would come in His name and deceive many (Matt. 24:5). He also warned that some would claim to bring peace and unity, but would be “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (Matt. 7:15).

“Seventh Covenant” and the Destruction of Holy Sites

In what can only be described as one of the most aggressive and heretical rejections of traditional Abrahamic worship, the cult of Ahmed Al-Hassan — masquerading under the title of the “Seventh Covenant” — launches a theological war not just against Christianity, but also against the foundations of Islamic belief. At the heart of this extremist doctrine lies a shocking proposal: to obliterate the very symbols of historic monotheism and replace them with the self-serving narrative of a self-declared messianic figure.

The Planned Destruction of the Kaaba and Medina

Ahmed Al-Hassan and his followers teach that their so-called “Qaim” or “Riser” will destroy the most sacred Islamic site — the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca, including the Kaaba itself. This is not a metaphorical or spiritual interpretation. The text is shockingly literal:

“He demolishes the Masjid Al-Haram (the mosque complex of Mecca that surrounds and encompasses the Kaaba), until he returns it to its origin and moves the Maqam to the place that it was really at, and he cuts off the hands of the Bani-Sheyba and hangs it on the door of the Kaaba and writes on it: ‘These are the thieves of the Kaaba.’” (Bihar Al-Anwar, Vol. 52, p. 338)

Not content with desecrating Mecca, the supposed “Riser” then heads to Medina to destroy the tomb of Muhammad:

“If the Riser/Qaim approaches the wall on the tomb intending to break it, God will then send extreme winds and lightning and thunder until the people say, ‘Verily this is because of that’ and his companions will run away from him until there does not remain with him a single person. The Riser/Qaim will then take the axe, and he is the first one to strike with the axe, and when his companions see him striking with the axe, they run back to him and their rank that day will be determined by how fast they run back to him.” (Bihar Al-Anwar, Vol. 52, p. 386)

This is not a theological correction of past misguidance — it is the violent erasure of Islamic tradition, and ironically, it is carried out by someone who claims to be the rightful heir to its prophetic legacy.

The Rejection of the Kaaba as a Holy Site

The radical teachings of Ahmed Al-Hassan go even further by completely denying the current Kaaba’s legitimacy, claiming that it is a false structure built by Quraysh in the wrong location:

“The house of the Kaaba that people know is not the real Kaaba, the real Kaaba has been completely destroyed… The original Kaaba of Quraysh was demolished and this is a new Kaaba that they recently built.”

“The truth is that Abraham didn’t actually build the Kaaba, but rather he reconstructed it, but now there is no longer a trace of it… The real Kaaba is located in Al-Sham (Levant) and not in Al-Hijaz and particularly in Jordan… The Imam further clarified that the exact location of the true original Kaaba is Petra, Jordan.”
(The Seventh Covenant with Ahmed Al-Hassan, pp. 114–115)

This revisionist history does not merely challenge Islamic orthodoxy — it attempts to rewrite the entire geographical and religious legacy of Abraham and Muhammad.

Replacing the Hajj with Social Charity

In one instance, a follower asked if it was still permissible to go on pilgrimage (Hajj) to Mecca under the current Saudi regime. Rather than offering spiritual advice, Ahmed Al-Hassan dismissed the entire concept of pilgrimage, effectively nullifying one of the Five Pillars of Islam:

“Instead of going to do pilgrimage (Hajj) you should go and give the money you would be spending on Hajj to the poor people that are dying of starvation around the world. I swear by God that would equate with God a hundred thousand pilgrimages.”

When pressed further about the contradiction between Qur’anic command and his directive, he replied:

“This time and this month is not even the month of Hajj… and the Kaaba which you know is not even the one that is called ‘The Holy Sanctuary of God.’ I know perhaps many people shall call me a disbeliever, but that is not important…”
(The Seventh Covenant with Ahmed Al-Hassan, p. 115)

This shows not only contempt for traditional Islamic practice but also a profound theological arrogance, claiming to know the times and seasons better than those allegedly inspired by God in the Qur’an.

Rewriting the Islamic Calendar

One of the most bizarre claims of this cult involves replacing the Islamic lunar calendar with a fabricated solar version, allegedly closer to the “true” calendar of the Quraysh. The reasoning? Because spring months are still called “Rabi” (spring), Ahmed Al-Hassan concludes that the calendar must have originally been solar — ignoring over a thousand years of calendar history:

“This time and this month is not even the month of Hajj… I would like to increase you with another piece of information… The so-called lunar calendar or Hijri calendar which the Muslims use today originally used to be a solar calendar.”
(The Seventh Covenant with Ahmed Al-Hassan, p. 115)

Here is the cult’s revised month mapping:

Gregorian Month“Correct” Hijri MonthJanuaryJamadi the FirstFebruaryJamadi the LastMarchRabi the FirstAprilRabi the SecondMaySafarJuneMuharramJulyShawwalAugustDhu Al-QadahSeptemberDhu Al-HijjahOctoberSha’banNovemberRajabDecemberRamadan

The Seventh Covenant: Women’s Veil and Prayer

Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan asserts that the veil, or hijab, is not obligatory but merely a “sunnah” (a recommended practice), arguing that it was introduced by Abdul-Muttalib and not by the Prophet Muhammad. He maintains that modern interpretations of the veil, as a religious duty, are cultural practices rather than divinely mandated. This interpretation, as presented in the Seventh Covenant, calls into question the role of modesty and the application of divine commandments in everyday life.

Biblical Refutation:

The concept of modesty and the covering of a woman’s head in worship is deeply rooted in biblical teaching. 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 addresses this issue explicitly, reinforcing that the act of covering one’s head is not merely a cultural practice but a divine command during prayer and worship:

“But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn; but if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.”

This passage indicates that a woman’s head covering during prayer is a sign of respect and order within the Christian community. The covering serves as an outward symbol of submission to God’s created order, where the head covering represents the woman’s relationship to her husband, and both men and women are to express humility and honor before God.

In contrast, the Seventh Covenant’s view that the veil is optional undermines the biblical principle of modesty and obedience to God’s commands regarding worship. The veil, as part of God’s law in 1 Corinthians 11, is not simply a societal custom; it represents a commandment that upholds God’s created structure in marriage and worship. For Christians, it remains an essential practice to observe, not as a mere cultural expression, but as a divine directive that maintains the dignity of both women and men in the presence of God.

The Restoration of the True Prayer

Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan claims that true prayer is not simply the physical acts of bowing and prostrating, but the “prostration of the heart.” He also presents the five daily prayers, as outlined in the Qur’an, not as obligations in their current form, but as symbolic representations of the reign of the Mahdi (the divinely appointed ruler). This, according to him, is the real essence of prayer—a form of submission and acknowledgment of the Mahdi’s authority rather than the traditional practice of physical postures during prayer.

Biblical Refutation:

From a biblical perspective, prayer is more than just an inner disposition; it involves both the heart and the outward expression of that heart through physical actions. While the heart must be sincere in prayer, the Bible does not teach that prayer can be separated from its physical expression. Jesus Himself instructed His disciples on the importance of specific, physical acts in prayer, as seen in Matthew 6:6:

“But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.”

This passage illustrates that prayer involves both an inward attitude (praying in secret, humbling oneself before God) and an outward expression (entering a place of quiet and closing the door). Prayer is not just about the heart; it involves action—whether that be bowing, kneeling, or standing—in order to show reverence to God. Thus, the physical act of bowing and prostrating during prayer remains a biblical practice.

Further, in Luke 22:41, Jesus is described as kneeling and praying in the Garden of Gethsemane:

“And He was withdrawn from them about a stone’s throw, and He knelt down and prayed.”

The physical posture of kneeling in prayer underscores the importance of submission and reverence before God. The notion that prayer is merely metaphorical or symbolic, as suggested by Imam Al-Hassan, dismisses the biblical teaching on the bodily act of submission through prayer. The Bible teaches that sincere prayer is not only an inner devotion but is also expressed through physical posture and ritual, reflecting the fullness of worship.

Loans and Interest (Riba)

Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan argues that charging interest (Riba) on loans is prohibited, citing its harmful effects on society. He further argues that the prohibition of Riba is not merely an Islamic teaching but an ethical mandate aimed at curbing social inequities. He suggests that it causes lasting damage, not only to individuals but also to their descendants, and that this practice was misunderstood in later Islamic traditions.

Biblical Refutation:

While the Bible does caution against exploiting the poor or charging excessive interest, it does not universally forbid the practice of charging interest in all circumstances. In the Old Testament, we find clear prohibitions against charging interest to fellow Israelites, particularly to the poor (Exodus 22:25), but these laws were context-specific:

“If you lend money to any of My people who are poor among you, you shall not be like a moneylender to him; you shall not charge him interest.”

However, the Bible also provides instances where the charging of interest is not inherently wrong. In Deuteronomy 23:20-21, it is permitted to charge interest to foreigners, implying that interest is not inherently sinful:

“To a foreigner you may charge interest, but to your brother you shall not charge interest.”

This establishes that the prohibition against interest is specifically for fellow believers, highlighting a concern for compassion and fairness toward those in need. Moreover, in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:27), Jesus condemns the lazy servant for not earning interest on his master’s money:

“You should have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest.”

This implies that, in some circumstances, charging interest is a responsible and prudent financial practice. The blanket prohibition of interest, as claimed in the Seventh Covenant, goes beyond the biblical view, which allows for such practices under certain conditions, provided they do not harm the poor or exploit others.

Capital Punishment

Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan asserts that certain forms of corporal punishment, such as the cutting off of a thief’s hand (as mentioned in the Qur’an), are no longer applicable and have been corrupted over time. He argues that these punishments are outdated and that God’s mercy should prevail over rigid legalistic punishments.

Biblical Refutation:

The Bible indeed contains laws that prescribe capital punishment for specific crimes, such as theft (Exodus 22:1-3), but these laws must be understood in their historical and redemptive context. In the Old Testament, God’s law aimed to preserve justice and societal order, but the New Testament brings a shift in focus toward mercy and reconciliation.

In John 8:7, when Jesus was confronted with the woman caught in adultery and about to be stoned, He said:

“He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”

This statement is significant because it shifts the focus from rigid adherence to the law to a focus on repentance and mercy. Jesus does not dismiss the law but rather calls for justice to be tempered with mercy. Thus, while capital punishment was once part of God’s legal code, the New Testament emphasizes forgiveness and grace, urging believers to consider the mercy of God over strict judgment.

The complete abolition of corporal punishment, as proposed by Imam Al-Hassan, ignores this biblical tension between justice and mercy. The Bible allows for punishment, but it insists that mercy, repentance, and restoration be integral to the process, as seen in the teachings of Christ.

Drinking Wine & Alcohol

In the Seventh Covenant, Imam Ahmed Al-Hassan asserts that alcohol was prohibited as a temporary measure and that in paradise, alcohol will be allowed again. He bases this argument on the belief that the prohibition of alcohol is a social measure, not a divine mandate, and that it was implemented to prevent societal harm.

Biblical Refutation:

The Bible presents a more nuanced view of alcohol. It is not alcohol itself that is condemned, but rather drunkenness. In Ephesians 5:18, the apostle Paul writes:

“Do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit.”

Drunkenness is considered a sin because it leads to destructive behavior and loss of self-control. However, the Bible does not prohibit the consumption of wine in moderation. In Psalm 104:14-15, wine is seen as a blessing from God:

“He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and vegetation for the service of man, that he may bring forth food from the earth, and wine that makes glad the heart of man…”

Moreover, in 1 Timothy 5:23, Paul advises Timothy to drink wine for health reasons:

“No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities.”

Thus, the Bible teaches moderation in all things, and while drunkenness is clearly condemned, alcohol in and of itself is not forbidden. The claim that alcohol will be permitted again in paradise, as Imam Al-Hassan suggests, is not supported by the Bible, which promotes temperance and self-control in earthly life.

1. The “Magnificent Refuge” and the Faithful Believer’s Store of Good Deeds

The passage opens with a description of the “magnificent refuge” as the faithful believer’s “store of good deeds,” which is described as belonging to the believer by virtue of his purity and total achievement of his desires within the bounds of faith.

From a biblical perspective, the notion of accumulating good deeds as a “store” or refuge in the afterlife contradicts the foundational Christian doctrine of justification by faith alone (Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:8-9). Christianity teaches that salvation and standing before God are not based on the believer’s deeds or any accumulation of righteousness they may achieve, but on the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:22-24; 2 Corinthians 5:21).

In contrast, the idea that one’s “desires” can be fully achieved by adhering to purity and good deeds is problematic in that it aligns more with a works-based salvation, something the Bible expressly refutes (Galatians 2:16). This principle is not just heretical in the context of salvation, but it also diverts believers from the truth that Christ alone is the refuge for believers (Matthew 11:28-30), and the good deeds of believers are the fruit of faith, not the means of salvation (James 2:17).

2. Destruction of Longstanding Religious Structures

The passage asserts that the Seventh Covenant will require the destruction of major religious structures like the Kaaba, the lunar calendar, and ritual prayer because they have become “idolatrous” and impure over the past 1,400 years. The argument further suggests that this destruction is necessary to expose the “idolatry” and “impurities” of previous religious practices.

From a biblical standpoint, this claim is deeply troubling and reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of God’s sovereignty over human history and religious practices. The Bible does not support the idea that physical structures or traditions, such as the Kaaba or the ritual prayers, inherently possess “idolatrous” qualities in and of themselves, especially when used in a manner that seeks to honor God. While Scripture certainly condemns idolatry and false worship (Exodus 20:3-5), the physical destruction of religious practices as a means of “cleansing” them is unscriptural.

Instead, the Bible teaches that God’s true worshippers worship Him in spirit and truth (John 4:24), not through the destruction of physical temples or rituals but through the purification of the heart (Matthew 15:18-20). Jesus Christ, as the ultimate high priest and the fulfillment of the Law, has already brought an end to the need for temple worship and rituals associated with it (Matthew 27:51; Hebrews 9:11-12). The biblical church does not require the physical destruction of places of worship but calls for the transformation of hearts through the Gospel (Romans 12:1-2).

3. Prophetic Fulfillment and the Coming of the “Riser/Qaim”

The passage claims that the Seventh Covenant represents the fulfillment of numerous prophecies, with the “Riser/Qaim” from the Family of Mohammed coming to obliterate misguidance and bring a new order. The figure of the Qaim is presented as a Messianic figure whose arrival will purify the earth from falsehood.

The Bible, however, teaches that Jesus Christ is the only fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah. The New Testament consistently affirms that Christ is the anointed one, the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17), and the only Savior of the world (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). There is no biblical basis for the introduction of a new, later Messiah or divine figure, as the Bible teaches that Christ’s first coming accomplished all that was necessary for salvation and the restoration of God’s kingdom on earth.

Furthermore, the Bible speaks clearly against any additional messianic figures or self-proclaimed divinely appointed leaders who rise to establish a new religious order (Matthew 24:23-26). Jesus Himself warned about false messiahs who would deceive many, a warning that applies directly to the figure of the Qaim presented here (Matthew 24:5, 24).

4. Destruction of Houses of Worship and Idolatry

The claim that houses of worship, including mosques, which have supposedly become “houses of misguidance, idolatry, and hypocrisy,” must be destroyed, is a severe distortion of biblical teaching. According to the Bible, worship is not bound to physical structures but is a matter of the heart. Jesus, when speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well, clarified that true worship does not depend on a specific location but on the worship of God in spirit and truth (John 4:21-24).

In fact, the Bible does not promote the physical destruction of places of worship, but rather calls for the purification of hearts through the gospel of peace (Romans 10:15). The destruction of religious buildings would be a misguided attempt to solve a spiritual problem with a physical solution, something that contrasts with the message of redemption offered through Christ alone. Instead of calling for the destruction of buildings, the Bible teaches that all believers should seek to worship God in a way that honors Him, not by the destruction of religious structures but by the renewal of the heart (Romans 12:1-2).

5. Islam’s Return to Strangeness and the “Blessed” Strangers

The text refers to the famous hadith where Prophet Mohammed states that Islam will return to being strange and thus “blessed are the strangers.” The book applies this to those who accept the teachings of the Seventh Covenant, framing them as part of a “blessed” remnant.

The strangeness spoken of in the Bible is not about a new revelation but about the radical nature of the Gospel message itself. Jesus warned His followers that they would be hated for His sake and that they would be considered strangers or outcasts (John 15:18-20). The Bible does not speak of a new or additional revelation that would restore some ancient lost truth; instead, it speaks of a gospel of grace that transcends all cultures, calling all to salvation in Christ alone (Mark 16:15-16).

Moreover, the idea of a new “blessed” group receiving exclusive revelations that replace or overrule the established truth of God’s Word is contradictory to the biblical understanding of the finality of Christ’s work (Hebrews 1:1-2). The strangers in the Bible are those who embrace the Gospel of Christ and live as aliens in a world that rejects God, not those who follow new or unbiblical revelations.

6. Changes in Jurisprudence and the Unfolding of the Seventh Covenant

The claim that there will be future jurisprudential revelations and changes in religious law under the Seventh Covenant presents a theological problem. The Bible explicitly teaches that the law of Christ, the new covenant, has been revealed once and for all through Jesus Christ and that believers are to live under the law of grace, not the Mosaic Law or any new set of regulations (Romans 6:14; Galatians 3:24-25). The finality of Christ’s work means there is no need for a new set of laws or a revised covenant to supersede the gospel of grace already provided.

Conclusion

The teachings in The Seventh Covenant with Ahmed Al-Hassan deviate significantly from biblical doctrine. They promote a works-based salvation, the destruction of established religious practices without justification, the arrival of a new messianic figure, and the creation of a new religious order. Each of these elements contradicts the biblical gospel of grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ, the finality of Christ’s work, and the call for believers to worship God in spirit and truth. Thus, these teachings must be rejected as heretical and unbiblical, as they undermine the sufficiency and finality of Christ’s sacrifice for sin.

The post Refuting the Claims in the Seventh Covenant (Part 2) – Ahmed Al-Hassan and the Assault on Biblical and Islamic Orthodoxy appeared first on UK Apologetics Library.