Strife in Azad Kashmir

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

والصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

The recent flareup in Azad Kashmir is an example of fitna among the Muslims stirred by our enemy, in this case, the Republic of India.

Kashmir is a critical region in the north of the Indian Subcontinent. The Muslims of that region suffered immensely during Dogra Hindu rule, which by the grace of Allah came to an end in 1947 with the establishment of Pakistan. The Dogra princely state encompassed many territories which together composed this sensitive and beautiful region, including the Kashmir Valley, Jammu, Ladakh, the Hunza Valley, Gilgit, and Chitral. As such, the region was and continues to be religiously, ethnically and linguistically diverse. 

Sunni Muslims are the majority in the Kashmir Valley, while Ladakh is predominantly Tibetan Buddhist, Jammu is majority Hindu, the Hunza Valley and parts of Gilgit are majority Ismaili (worshipers of the Aga Khan), and the region known as Baltistan is mostly Twelver Shia.

While Kashmiris are perhaps the most important ethnic group, there are other ethnic groups, including the Shina who are also Sunni Muslims, Potohari and Gojri communities that predominate in today’s Azad Kashmir, likewise Sunni Muslim, the Baltis who are Twelver Shia, Dogras who tend to be Hindu, Ladakhi Buddhists, and the Wakhi, Kho, and Burusho ethnic groups which are Ismaili. 

The region is hotly contested between Islamic Pakistan and Hindu India, with the latter tragically in control of the Kashmir Valley and the capital city of Srinagar, a region that is almost entirely Muslim. Both nations have fought three major wars (1947-1948, 1965, 1971) and many skirmishes for control of the region after the Dogra Maharaja, Hari Singh, treacherously acceded his princely state to India instead of Pakistan.

Qaid-e-Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, may Allah have mercy on his soul, famously and rightly stated that Kashmir is Pakistan’s jugular vein. While some weak-minded and cowardly people argue that Pakistan should surrender its claim to Kashmir and recognize India’s sovereignty over it in the interest of peace and, according to them, because the Kashmir Valley is not a strategically important location, the founder of Pakistan knew better and was endowed with both wisdom and honor when he proclaimed that Kashmir is Pakistan’s jugular vein. Indeed, the very name Pakistan, based on an acronym, has its K to represent the province of Kashmir. Pakistan is therefore incomplete without the entirely of Kashmir being within its borders.

But as for those regions, though historically part of the Dogra ruled princely state of Kashmir, such as Ladakh and the area of Jammu, it is not that vital for Pakistan to gain control of them because these are majority non-Muslim areas.

Ladakh is mostly Buddhist, but there is a significant Balti Shia community present there. The problem is these Shia in Ladakh are totally loyal to the Republic of India, even more so than the Buddhists! It confirms my thesis that non-Sunni schismatics can never be trusted, they lack loyalty to the Ummah and often serve as an instrument of the external enemies of Islam and Muslims to sabotage us from within.

Wanting to replicate its apparently effective strategy in making dissension in Baluchistan, India’s RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) is surely involved in encouraging the current strife in Azad Kashmir.

The Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) is the face of this friction in Azad Kashmir. Along with demands for relief in the soaring price of wheat and electricity, the JAAC has also riled up some of the people to express their stern opposition to Azad Kashmir’s legislature having twelve out of the fifty-three seats reserved for the refugees and diaspora communities that entered Pakistan from Kashmir Valley and Jammu. Six of those seats are for the ethnic Kashmiri refugees and the other six are for the Muslim refugees of Jammu.

The JAAC says that reserving twelve seats for the refugees is unjust and hugely disproportional to their actual numbers in Azad Kashmir. It is true that much of the Kashmiri diaspora do not live in Azad Kashmir proper but moved on to the larger urban centers elsewhere in Pakistan.

But the JAAC is making needless trouble on this issue given that the Kashmiri refugees and diaspora in Pakistan broadly have the same interests and political sense as the rest of the population. One can even argue that as people who actively chose to leave their homes behind in order to live in Pakistan they are even more loyal to Pakistan, and less likely to prioritize narrow ethnic concerns in electoral politics.

These twelve reserved seats are protected by the Constitution, and part of their rationale is to serve as a gesture of goodwill, to illustrate to the Kashmiri Muslims presently oppressed under Indian military occupation that Pakistan cares for them and will treat them with brotherly preference if they should ever become part of Pakistan.

This reflects the spirit of the warm welcome, fraternity and favor the Ansar of Medina showed the Muhajirin who emigrated to Medina from Mecca along with the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. Rather than express discontent over such a minor issue as the number of reserved seats for Kashmiri refugees in the Azad Kashmir legislature, the Potohari, Gojri and other locals of Azad Kashmir should adopt the same attitude as the blessed Ansar of Medina, may Allah be pleased with them.

Presently, the State in Pakistan is struggling to overcome many gigantic problems facing the country, especially economic problems and the increasing aggression of a fascist, Hinduized India. Despite legitimate economic and political grievances, Pakistanis must patiently endure and steer clear of any political agitation that will doubtlessly be exploited by India and her RAW to weaken Pakistan from within.

Hypocrisy and Danger of the Left

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

We, the Muslims of the West, are politically orphaned and homeless. Both the Right and Left are diametrically opposed to our community’s interests.

In the case of the Right, especially the Far Right, this is obvious. It is open season on Muslims for them. They recognize that there is not much of a political fallout for them to viciously attack us Muslims, unlike other minorities (Black, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Indigenous, Gays, etc.).

Muslims consistently have the least favorability among Westerns according to polls, again, unlike other minorities. One would therefore expect that the Left would prioritize Muslims as the group deserving the most validation and advocacy at this time. Alas, this is simply not the case! On the contrary, it is the LGBTQ which the Left expresses the most fervor for validation, celebration and advocacy.

June being “Pride Month” is a perfect example of this attitude of the Left. Here in Canada especially, the pomp and energy with which Pride flags and other LGBTQ symbolism are displayed, and the mass participation of the public in Pride parades has no parallel. Arguably, this is a greater cultural event in Canada than even Christmas and Canada Day!

The Left declares that such magnitude of outpour of support for the LGBTQ “community” is necessary to validate what they consider to be a target of hate and marginalization. But according to this principle, Muslims and not LGBTQ, Indigenous people, Blacks, Jews or anyone else should be prioritized for validation. Especially considering that those other minorities are not threatened with harm anywhere near the extent Muslims are threatened in the West in this current political atmosphere.

The eminent martyr Malcolm X, may Allah have mercy on his soul, famously and harshly criticized the White liberal for his hypocrisy. I also recognize that the liberal or the leftist is a snake that speaks with a forked tongue.

In Canada, the government recently passed Bill C-9, which removes the “good faith religious expressions” as a defense for charges of hate speech. According to the Canadian Constitution Foundation, “Before Bill C-9, if a person charged with public incitement of hatred, wilful promotion of hatred or wilful promotion of antisemitism could establish that they, ‘in good faith…expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text,’ that would have been a full defence to the charge. This means they would not be convicted. Bill C-9 has removed this defence, putting Canadians at greater risk of charges for religious speech.”

In other words, Muslims and other conservative religious communities could potentially and likely face criminal charges of willfully promoting hatred of an identifiable group by quoting scriptures from the Quran, Hadith and Bible that condemn homosexuals and homosexuality (sodomy), the Jews for having murdered and rejected many Prophets, and Hindus, Pagans and other polytheists for idolatry. Even religious speech condemning the heresies of the Shia, Ahmadis/Qadianis, Bahais and indeed any other religion is now subject to criminal charges of willfully promoting hatred of an identifiable group.

Is it not hypocritical of the Left to enact such horrendous legislation which plainly violates the freedom of religion supposedly guaranteed by international human rights conventions, while simultaneously failing to do practically anything to remedy the discriminatory laicity laws of Bill 21 and Bill 9 in Quebec? The latter openly discriminate against especially Muslim ladies who observe veiling from holding certain government jobs that give them a position of authority.

Muslims must wake up! For too long these Left/liberal political parties have taken the votes of the Community for granted, but rather than serving or defending our interests, once in power their governments actively harm us and pass discriminatory legislation against us.

The token Muslim representatives which the Left/liberals foist upon the Community are often hypocrites themselves that express contempt for our conservative religious values. They certainly have no grassroots legitimacy from the Community itself, but are often parachuted into our constituencies by the powerful political parties to prevent the rise of a truly authentic Muslim voice and political representation.

This also reflects the failure of the Community itself to develop its own independent political representation without being held hostage by the Left/liberal parties.

I realize that for many, perhaps even most Muslims part of our Community here in the West, foreign policy issues such as Palestine take precedence for them, and evoke greater passion in them, than domestic issues such as the evil of laicity or the indoctrination of our children in the public school system. So if they recognize the hypocrisy of the Left of Center or mainstream liberal parties, they nevertheless continue to align themselves with and fully back the Far Left parties, such as the NDP in Canada and the Green Party in the UK.

But I characterize the vipers of the Far Left as sneakier and more cunning than the others on the political spectrum as it relates to us Muslims. Their agenda is to erase our unique identify and particular social, cultural, political, economic and religious interests by persuading us that we are all part of the working class, and the working class identity is the only relevant one to do politics on. 

Their politicians frequent our mosques during election season to campaign and appeal to us for votes, but once in office they do practically nothing to further our interests or address our legitimate concerns.

Once again, see their hypocrisy in this regard, because the same is not true for how the Far Left represents other minorities, especially the LGBTQ, Blacks and Indigenous people.

In personal interactions with the Far Left on social media I have come to the inescapable conclusion that these are a people who in their heart of hearts hate Islam, hate the Quran, and hate the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. They do everything in their power to suppress the conservative Muslim voice here in the West. 

Muslim youth are duped by the Far Left because of their sloganeering for Palestine, condemnation of Zionism, and apparent opposition to the Far Right and mainstream conservative parties that are openly hostile to Muslims.

We Muslims underestimate our capability to mobilize and our vast potential to influence politics due to our growing numbers and presence in the West. The Left, however, is quite aware of this potential and dreads it.

Take the Left’s embrace of indigeneity. I propose this is why they are ultimately compelled to support the Palestinians as opposed to Zionism, since the Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine while the Jews are predominantly settlers from eastern Europe and elsewhere.

But Indigenism is a double edged sword for us Muslims. It is being invoked in Europe by the Far Right and European nativists who seek to remove the Muslim presence precisely on account of us being a foreign, alien and invasive presence on that continent. Indigenism led to the recent ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar based on the argument that the Rohingya are Bengalis which the British settled in Burma during the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Here in North America, Indigenism is fully embraced by the Left and I foresee the consequence of this phenomenon being the division of Canadians into tiers of citizenship, with the Amerindian population having greater rights and ownership to Canada than non-Indigenous people. This will especially adversely affect those communities in Canada which are relatively newer, especially Muslims and other immigrant communities which predominantly hail from Asia. 

The logical conclusion of Indigenism is also to question and condemn the spread of Islam in the Near East, North Africa and the Indian Subcontinent. It has to be admitted that the early Muslims who settled in the Levant and Mesopotamia were basically Arabian colonists living among the native non-Arabs who were eventually fully Islamized and Arabized centuries later. I acknowledge that early Islam was essentially a project of Arab settler colonialism, and therefore our Religion does not validate Indigenism.

Using the argument of indigeneity against Zionism ultimately backfires on us. This explains why its most ardent proponents tend to be secularist and leftist, and some are outright atheist who say they want nothing to do with Islam.

Survey of Sikh Sects

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

Sikhism is a religion supposedly founded by Nanak (d. 1539), a Khatri Hindu from Punjab, in the very early 16th century.

He is reported to have had an epiphany while submerged in the Kali Bein, a rivulet near the town of Sultanpur Lodhi.

He emerged after three days in the waters and proclaimed “there is no Hindu, there is no Musalman”. 

This proclamation reflects the inner wrangling of Nanak with his setting, northwest India during the Muslim Lodi dynasty.

He was highly influenced by the syncretic tradition of the Bhakti movement, associated with figures like Kabir.

The radical teaching of Kabir and other Bhakti poets may be described as skeptic, antinomian, anti-clerical and egalitarian, would come to characterize Nanak’s own understanding of true religion.

The Guru Granth Sahib contains the writings and sayings of several figures who preceded Nanak, such as Kabir, Ravidas, Namdev, Jaidev, Trilochan, Sadhna, Beni, Pipa, Dhanna, Parmanand, Sain, Surdas, Ramanand and even the great Chishti Sufi saint, Shaikh Farid “Ganjshakar” of Pakpattan (1173-1265), may Allah have mercy on his soul, a disciple and successor of the great Sufi saint Qutb-ud-Din Bakhtiar Kaki (1173-1235), may Allah have mercy on his soul.

But following in the footsteps of the other figures associated with Bhakti, Nanak too became skeptical of ritual, or formalities in religion, often questioning the practices and intentions of the Hindu Brahmins and orthodox Muslims of the scholastic tradition. It is ironic considering that Sikhism of today is highly ritualistic and prescribes a detailed Rehat or code of conduct for its adherents. This demonstrates that over time Sikhism evolved and changed from the original teaching of Nanak to its present condition today.

The figures associated with Bhakti whose hymns and couplets are included in the Granth were mostly from the 15th and 16th century, very close to the time of or contemporaneous to Nanak. Some like Trilochan and Namdev and the eminent Chishti Sufi Shaikh Farid-ud-Din Mas’ud Ganjshakar, may Allah have mercy on him, are from the 13th century.

From this we can conclude that Nanak was influenced by a very specific, in terms of time period and region, set of Bhakti Hindu mystics and poets. He did not really contribute anything novel to this tradition which would make him stand out among them.

During the lifetime of Nanak, a cataclysmic event occurred. The Timurid warlord Babur and his Barlas tribe conquered Delhi from the Lodi dynasty and established the famous Mughal dynasty in 1526.

Yet, Nanak never delivered a prophecy predicting this seismic and watershed event in India’s history. The Babarvani attributed to Nanak are four Sabads in which Nanak laments the misery and destruction caused by Babur’s invasion and his war with Ibrahim Lodi of the Delhi Sultanate, is clearly a composition after the fact.

Incidentally, there is nothing from Nanak or the subsequent Sikh gurus like the prophecies of the Israelite Prophets (Jeremiah, Micah, Zephaniah) forecasting the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem and destruction of the Kingdom of Judah which happened in the 6th century BCE, or the prophecy of Christ Jesus about the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem which happened in 70 CE, or the Prophet Muhammad’s prophecy, as mentioned in the thirtieth Surah of the Quran, foretelling the Byzantine defeat of the Sassanids that was fulfilled when Emperor Heraclius launched a counteroffensive against Eranshahr beginning in 622 CE.

The eminent Sufi saint and mystic Najm-ud-Din Kubra (1145-1221) predicted, on the basis of Kashf and Ilham (divine unveiling and inspiration) the devastating Mongol sack of the wicked Khwarezmian Empire, which occurred by the hand of the notorious Genghis Khan who laid siege to and finally entered and brutally massacred the town of Otrar in December 1219.

Like Nebuchadnezzar, Genghis Khan proclaimed himself the instrument of God’s wrath upon the Muslims for their moral corruption.

Inalchuq, the wicked Khwarezmian governor of Otrar, had provoked Genghis Khan and his Mongol hordes to attack when he had executed the latter’s envoys and delegations sent to him.

The Mongol wrath did not stop at Otrar, but continued in the total devastation of Islamic civilization of Central Asia, Khorasan, Iran and up till Baghdad, which was finally sacked in 1258, ending the Abbasid dynasty.

Returning to Sikhism, the followers of Nanak immediately fragmented when he died in 1539. Here I will list the dozens of Sikh sects, which is by no means an exhaustive list:

Nanakpanthi sect: Early followers of Nanak who did not recognize the succession of gurus after him.

Udasi sect: An ascetic movement of celibate sadhus who followed Nanak’s eldest son called Baba Sri Chand (1494-1629).

Jagiasi sect: Followers of another of Nanak’s sons, Lakhmi Das (1497-1555).

Sanwal Shahi sect: Followers of another disciple of Nanak known as Sanwal Shah.

Gangushahi sect: Followers of Gangu Shah, a disciple of the third Sikh guru, Amar Das (1479-1574).

Hindali sect: Followers of Hindal (1573-1648), another diciple of the third guru Amar Das.

Sat Kartari sect: Followers of Sangat Das, a disciple of the sixth Sikh guru, Hargobind (1595-1644).

Suthrashahi sect: Followers of Suthra Shah (1625-1682), another disciple of the sixth Sikh guru, Hargobind.

Mina sect: Followers of Prithi Chand (1558-1618), son of the fourth Sikh guru, Ram Das (1534-1581). Prithi Chand claimed to be the true successor of his father, as opposed to his younger brother, the fifth Sikh guru Arjan (1563-1606).

Meharbania or Divana sect: Followers of Meharban (1581-1640). They would sing and dance to Gurbani.

Dhirmalia sect: Followers of Dhir Mal (1627-1677), a grandson of the sixth guru Hargobind and rival guru claimant.

Ramraiya sect: Followers of Ram Rai (1645-1689), eldest son of the seventh Sikh guru Har Rai (1630-1661) instead of the eighth Sikh guru Har Krishan (1656-1664).

Nirmala sect: A Sikh sect that claims the tenth guru, Gobind Singh (1666-1708), as their founder, highly influenced by the Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy.

Sevapanthi sect: A Sikh order, followers of Bhai Kanhaiya (1648-1718), a disciple of the ninth Sikh guru Tegh Bahadur (1621-1675), which emphasizes altruistic service.

Tatt Khalsa sect: After the death of the tenth guru Gobind Singh, the followers of his widow Mata Sundari (d. 1747) who objected to the innovations of Banda Singh Bahadur (1670-1716) who had mandated vegetarianism, changed the Khalsa Sikh blue color for red, and maintained caste Hindu rituals.

Bandai sect: These were the followers of Banda Singh Bahadur, who had been commissioned by the tenth Sikh guru Gobind Singh for military campaigns against the Mughals and their agents.

Jit Malia sect: Followers of Ajit Singh Palit (d. 1725) another rival guru claimant.

Gulab Raiya sect: Followers of Gulab Rai (1660-1720), great grandson of Sikh guru Hargobind and rival guru claimant.

Radha Soami sect: Followers of Shiv Dayal Singh (1818-1878). They are presently split into two different factions, one led by Prem Saran Satsangi and the other by Gurinder Singh Dhillon.

Namdhari sect: Followers of Balak Singh (d. 1862), and his successors. Their current living guru is Uday Singh. They wear distinctive white turbans and clothing.

Nirankari sect: Followers of Dyal Singh (1783-1855), and his hereditary successors. One of their gurus, Gurbachan Singh, was assassinated by the rival and more dominant Akali Sikhs in 1980. Their current living guru is a woman, Sudiksha Savinder Hardev.

Ravidasia sect: Followers of Ravidas, a Bhakti poet.

Ridvani sect: Founded by Pritam Singh in 1908. They are Sikhs who believe in “Bahaullah”, a synthesis between Sikhi and Baha’i religions.

Nihang sect: A martial Sikh order known for their distinctive blue attire and carrying of larger daggers, knives, swords, spears and other weapons.

Some other distinctive Sikh sects and movements are the 3HO, Panch Khalsa Diwan, Akhand Kirtani Jatha, Kutta Marg movement of Narinder Singh, and Sachkhand Nanak Dham.

Similar to the mind boggling fragmentation of Shi’ism over petty disputes of succession to the Imamate, many of these Sikh sects listed emerged over disputes to the office of guru. While the so-called orthodox Sikhs or Akalis believe in a succession of ten gurus ending with Gobind Singh, after which the text of the Guru Granth Sahib remains the guru, other Sikh sects recognize a living guru instead, such as Nirankaris, Namdharis and Radha Soamis.

Why isn't the Name YHWH in Quran?

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

At the burning bush, Allah spoke to Moses and revealed to him:

اِنَّنِیۡۤ اَنَا اللّٰہُ لَاۤ اِلٰہَ اِلَّاۤ اَنَا فَاعۡبُدۡنِیۡ

I am I, Allah, there is no god except Me, so worship Me

(Surah 20, Ayah 14)

The words Innani Ana, which literally mean “I am Me” especially in conjunction with the narrative of what Allah said to Moses at the burning bush is certainly a confirmation and indication of what is mentioned about the Name of God in the Book of Exodus:

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם

And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you

(Exodus 3:14)

The words Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh meaning “I am that I am” are referred to in the Quran as Innani Ana “I am Me”. In this Biblical verse, God says His name is Ehyeh “you shall say to the sons of Israel, Ehyeh has sent me”. This is the meaning of God’s greatest Name, the Ism al-A’zam in Islamic tradition, regarding which the Prophet Muhammad said that It can be found, among other places, in Surat Ta Ha:

اسْمُ اللَّهِ الأَعْظَمُ الَّذِي إِذَا دُعِيَ بِهِ أَجَابَ فِي سُوَرٍ ثَلاَثٍ الْبَقَرَةِ وَآلِ عِمْرَانَ وَطَهَ

“The Greatest Name of Allah, which if called by He responds is in three Surahs: al-Baqarah, Ale Imran and Ta Ha.” (Sunan Ibn Majah)

The Ayah I have quoted in which Allah says انني انا “I am Me” to the Prophet Moses is the fourteenth verse of Surat Ta Ha.

Now the divine Name YHWH occurs in the Hebrew Bible a little under seven thousand times. It is the most frequent and repeated Name of God in the Old Testament, outnumbering the Name Elohim which occurs a under three thousand times.

Exodus 3:14 is essentially giving the etymological significance and meaning of the divine Name YHWH, and therefore so is the fourteenth Ayah of Surat Ta Ha in the Quran.

So it is a valid question as to why doesn’t the divine Name YHWH occur directly and plainly in the Holy Quran? Why instead is there an Islamic tradition from the Sunnah about the Ism al-A’zam (Greatest Name) though it is never spelled out plainly what that Name is?

I believe the reason for this is that the divine Name YHWH (even I am not spelling it out plainly for a reason) is because the Name is so holy, being the Greatest Name of all the many Names of God, that Islam does not want the people, especially Muslims, speaking or pronouncing it casually. This in fact indicated in the Third Commandment: “Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain; for YHWH will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain” (Exodus 20:7).

By at least a little before the time of Jesus, the Septuagint, or Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible in circulation, had Kyrios, Greek for Lord, written in place of the divine Name YHWH. This was a Jewish tradition, at least by that time, that the divine Name YHWH should not be uttered out of reverence and fear, a tradition that the Jews have preserved till the present.

Likewise, the divine Name YHWH never appears even once in the New Testament. In those places where the New Testament quotes a passage from the Old Testament in which the divine Name YHWH is mentioned, it has substituted it with Kyrios.

For instance, John the Baptist quotes Isaiah 40:3, “Prepare ye the way of the Lord [Kyriou]” (Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4). Isaiah 40:3, in the original Hebrew, has the divine Name YHWH, but the Gospels have rendered it Kyrios in Greek, meaning Lord, in keeping with the tradition of not uttering or writing the divine Name YHWH. 

Jesus quotes the Shema, “Hear O Israel; the Lord [Kyrios] our God is one Lord [Kyrios]” (Mark 12:29)

From this we can conclude that Jesus likely did not utter the divine Name YHWH, at least not casually or frequently, but instead, like the Pharisees, would have said Adonai. He would have said the Shema the way Jews say it today, not saying the divine Name YHWH, but substituting it with Adonai “my Lord”.

It is, therefore, strange that some Christians today insist on uttering and fully pronouncing the divine Name YHWH. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have made this point one of their salient features in dissenting from normative Christianity. They often argue that “Apostate Christendom” is guilty of having removed the name Jehovah from the translation of the Bible (and they have restored the name Jehovah in their New World Translation), but fail to explain why that name never once occurs in the Greek New Testament, even in a Hellenized form, which would be Iao. Jehovah itself is an Anglicization of a possible pronunciation of YHWH, though not the one most scholars contend is the actual one.

The Holy Quran, like the Gospels and the New Testament, has not plainly referred to the divine Name YHWH, not because it is unfamiliar with or denies the Name, but because it wants to discourage Muslims from saying or writing it down casually due its extreme holiness since it is the Ism al-A’zam (Greatest Name), thereby preventing unintentional sacrilege.

And Allah and His Apostle know best!