Triaging Speech

Listening for Truth Before the God of Abraham

1. Triaging speech

“those who listen to what is said and follow the best of it.”
— Qur’an 39:18, excerpt, translated by Mustafa Khattab

Listening and following are different acts. We can hear someone without accepting everything said. We can recognise a truth without endorsing the speaker’s entire worldview. We can reject a false conclusion while responding compassionately to the pain behind it.

This is what I mean by triaging speech: examining a message’s parts before deciding what deserves belief, sympathy or action.

Ibn Kathir explains the verse in terms of understanding speech and acting upon its best meaning. Ma‘arif al-Qur’anrecords several interpretations, including choosing the better course and distinguishing good speech from bad. The standard is truth and guidance, not whatever flatters the listener. [1]

My experience analysing speech through natural language processing for a company run (amongst others) by ex police staff in the UK (AI lab) gives me a practical starting point: what exactly is a message doing? The same sentence can carry several different functions. I cannot go into the details of the work due to confidentiality reasons, however, this should serve as a general guide.

Falsehood can enter through fabrication, exaggeration, selective truth, unsupported blame, framing or a conclusion that does not follow. Emotion itself is not falsehood; grief may deserve compassion even when an accusation needs checking.

Let’s take an example.

Fictitious political example: “Our children are suffering. Everyone in that community supports it. Share this before it disappears.”

The suffering deserves investigation and care. The collective accusation needs evidence. The instruction uses urgency to bypass scrutiny. Keep the concern for children; reject unsupported collective blame; verify before sharing.

The same discipline also protects uncomfortable truths. A message can be poorly expressed yet factually correct. Politeness is not proof, anger is not disproof, and a speaker’s mistakes do not invalidate every observation. Assess the particular claim before judging what action it warrants.

Following the best means preserving what is true and morally sound without carrying the rest along with it.

2. The God of Abraham

Apply that discipline to a significant rabbinic position: Islam’s uncompromising monotheism.

Maimonides, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, describes Muslims as non-idolaters and their understanding of divine unity as without defect. “Perfect monotheism” is a fair shorthand for this judgement about God’s oneness. It does not mean every Muslim is morally perfect, or that Maimonides accepted every Islamic doctrine. [2]

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef draws a practical conclusion: a mosque is not a house of idolatry, and Jewish prayer there is permissible. His discussion appears in Yabia Omer, VII, Yoreh De‘ah 12; and, Orach Chaim 16, addresses prayer at the Cave of Machpelah. [2]

Rabbi Yosef Kushner likewise explains that entering a mosque is permitted because Muslims worship the same God, and notes Jewish prayer at holy sites within mosques. [3]

These are permissive rabbinic views, not a claim of unanimous agreement. Permission concerns Jewish prayer in that space; it does not automatically authorise participation in every Islamic ritual. Neither do Muslims have to let mosques be turned into places of worship which are not our own. 

The point here is simply that – Monotheism. But there is a question that cannot be averted – This is the God who is living – Al-Hayy (ٱلْحَيُّ) and he hears prayers As-Samī‘ (السَّمِيع). Every Rabbi and Imam would agree to this. Both religions unanimously confirm we worship the same God – who is ever living, listens and guides.

So the conclusion that Muslims are not on the “right path” and follow the “latest revelation” cannot be correct. This should give pause to anyone of discernment reading. It is simply not possible – that would go against the basic axiom of the God of Abraham we pray to. So my simple follow up question would be – why are we fighting?

Is God not listening to us? Or God chose to let us carry on fighting? The theological reality does not match the reality on the ground we see today. We have unnecessary bloodshed, strife and friction.

What is the solution? 

My answer is simple.

Sincerity. Ikhlas. Kavanah. Pray sincerely to God and ask him for guidance.

Let’s take another example.

Fictitious religious example: “These rabbis recognise Islamic monotheism, so Judaism and Islam must be the same religion.”

The premise identifies genuine common ground. The conclusion reaches beyond it.

Worshipping the same God does not settle disagreements about revelation, prophecy, covenant or religious law. Maimonides maintains the enduring authority of the Torah; Muslims recognise Muhammadﷺ as God’s messenger and the Qur’an as revelation. The identity of the One addressed and the completeness of our understanding of Him are different questions. [4]

From a Qur’anic perspective, Abraham’s عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ submission precedes later communal labels (3:67), and the Qur’an affirms the oneness of the God addressed by Muslims and the People of the Book (29:46). These claims invite serious dialogue; they do not make doctrinal differences disappear. [5]

3. The Living God who hears

That shared recognition raises a more searching question.

If we worship the God of Abraham عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ, and believe He lives, hears and guides, why should hostility so often outrun our willingness to ask Him for guidance?

In Islam, and based on Biblical narratives Al-Hayy or Elohim Chayim (אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים), means the Ever-Living; As-Sami‘ or Shomea Tefilah (שֹׁמֵעַ תְּפִלָּה), the All-Hearing. We already discussed this. The Qur’an names God the Ever-Living in 2:255. Abraham also praises God as the hearer of prayer in 14:39. [6]

The Hebrew Bible likewise speaks of the living God (Jeremiah 10:10). Psalm 65:3, in Hebrew numbering, addresses the One who hears prayer; Psalm 145:18 affirms God’s nearness to those who call upon Him sincerely. [7]

Both traditions therefore give believers grounds for direct, earnest prayer. In Qur’an 2:186, divine nearness and response to prayer are connected with responding to God and being guided. [8] That’s why the central part of the 5 daily prayers ask God for Guidance in Surah Fatiha [15]. Not money, children, wealth, health – first guidance. So God in all his wisdom, has put guidance at the heart of the prayer because it is the fundamental need of a human being to be guided to the truth and follow the path (what Muslims call Sharia and Jews call Halacha) before death.

A personal supplication might be:

God of Abraham, You hear us. Show me what is true, including what challenges me. Protect the oppressed. Correct my injustice. Guide us towards what pleases You.

Each person can make that appeal within their own tradition. It requires neither a merged religion nor an invented joint ritual. It needs prayer, sincerity and following the truth to where it leads – without bringing our prejudices.

Prayer does not replace protecting life, establishing facts or pursuing justice. Conflicts also involve power, territory, security and concrete wrongdoing. Responsibility must be established honestly. Yet belief in a listening God should make us more accountable for our words, especially when we invoke Him against another person.

Believing that God hears does not give me the right to present my next feeling as His verdict. An inward sense of certainty still needs examination through scripture, reason, evidence and responsible counsel. Otherwise, prayer can become another way of placing my own preferences and prejudices beyond challenge and may be challenging God’s judgement, knowledge and revelation.

The question becomes personal: am I willing to be guided, or only vindicated?

4. Physical monotheism: whom do we worship?

Abraham’s example can be explored through three dimensions: physical, legal and spiritual monotheism. These are a practical framework for this article, not a formal three-part classification attributed to scripture or the rabbis.

“Physical” concerns outward objects and acts of worship; it does not suggest that God has a physical body.

Abraham challenges his people’s devotion to statues in Qur’an 21:52. His question exposes the difference between the Creator and something created, inherited or manufactured. [9]

Applied today, the first examination is straightforward: to whom is my worship directed? Am I treating a person, image or object as divine?

The rabbinic recognition of Islamic monotheism matters here. It acknowledges that Muslim worship is directed towards God rather than an idol. That recognition should change how the other community is described, even when disagreement remains.

Speech has its own outward substitutes for thought: flags, slogans, titles and images can acquire an authority they have not earned. These are not automatically objects of religious worship. But the analogy is useful: admiration must not make anything immune to examination.

A respected speaker still needs evidence. A familiar religious label does not make every sentence true.

5. Legal monotheism: whose authority governs us?

Abraham’s submission also concerns obedience. In Qur’an 2:131, he responds to God’s command by submitting to the Lord of all worlds. [10]

By “legal monotheism,” I mean recognising God’s ultimate moral authority and allowing it to judge our conduct. This does not make every human interpretation infallible or turn every policy dispute into a contest between belief and unbelief.

Judaism and Islam have distinct legal traditions. Recognising the same God does not remove disagreements over what He commands. It should, however, prevent us from treating our preferred leader, party or community as incapable of wrongdoing.

The Qur’an makes the test concrete: hostility towards others must not lead believers away from justice (5:8). [11]

Suppose a leader says, “Our cause is sacred, so questioning this accusation is betrayal.” The claim demands loyalty while shielding itself from scrutiny. Reverence for God provides no exemption from truthfulness.

Ask instead: Is the accusation established? Does the proposed response punish the responsible person or unrelated people? Would I accept the same reasoning if it were used against my family?

Legal monotheism, in this framework, means that belonging to my group does not place anyone above moral judgement. God’s authority must constrain my conduct as well as inform my criticism of others.

6. Spiritual monotheism: what rules the heart?

A person may reject statues and speak constantly about divine law while remaining governed by pride, resentment or the need to win.

Abraham’s عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ prayer points towards a deeper examination: the sound heart before God (Qur’an 26:89). [12]

Here, “spiritual monotheism” means sincerity of inward allegiance. It asks what happens when truth threatens status, comfort or identity. Calling pride an inward idol is a moral metaphor, not a licence to declare another person outside the faith.

The Prophet ﷺ describes arrogance as rejecting truth and looking down on people (Sahih Muslim 91a). That is a precise warning for religious argument: I can defend a true proposition with a heart unwilling to receive truth from anyone else. [13]

Now let’s turn back to a “real world example” again before concluding.

Fictitious AI example: “Your colleague is clearly jealous. Send this message exposing their dishonesty.”

Separate the layers. There may be a real disagreement. Jealousy is an unverified motive. Dishonesty is an accusation. The suggested message turns uncertainty into confrontation.

Keep the useful aim: address the disagreement. Replace mind-reading with a question: “I understood your comment this way. Is that what you meant?” Ask the AI to distinguish observed facts from assumptions before drafting a response.

The spiritual test concerns the pleasure I take in the accusation. Did I welcome it because it was well supported, or because it made me feel innocent and superior?

A heart seeking guidance must be prepared to surrender a satisfying story when the evidence fails.

7. Daily practice: listen, verify, pray and act

Before forwarding a message, answering an opponent or accepting an AI response, make five moves:

1. Separate: identify the claim, interpretation, emotion and instruction.
2. Verify: establish what is known, missing or merely assumed.
3. Retain: preserve the truth, legitimate concern and useful proposal.
4. Pray: ask for guidance, including correction of your own judgement.
5. Act: choose a truthful, proportionate response that serves justice.

The Prophet’s ﷺ instruction to speak good or remain silent gives speech a moral threshold (Sahih al-Bukhari 6018). His warning against repeating everything one hears makes restraint part of honesty (Sahih Muslim, Introduction 5). [14]

When evidence remains uncertain, say so. When an accusation proves false, correct it before the audience that heard it. When a legitimate grievance remains, address it rather than using the speaker’s exaggeration as an excuse to ignore it.

The God of Abraham عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ is not a possession of the speaker invoking Him. Belief in the Living, Hearing God calls us to speak as people who are themselves heard and answerable.

Triaging speech begins by asking what deserves to be followed. It deepens when we ask whether our worship, conduct and hearts are ready to follow the answer.

And finally, let’s take one last secular example before concluding. This time we dissect the speech into it’s parts, and analyse what “choosing the best” would look like from my perspective.

One final example: choosing what deserves to be followed

Imagine this fictitious message in a neighbourhood group:

“Someone smashed our community centre’s windows last night. Our children are frightened. It must be people from the other religious community—they have always hated us. Forget their complaints about threats; we are the victims here. If you care about your family, share their photographs and confront them tonight.”

One message contains several different kinds of speech:

What, then, should we choose?

Retain the legitimate concern: damage, frightened children and the need for safety. Verify the incident. Preserve evidence. Support those affected. Report threats and damage through appropriate channels. Reject collective blame, public identification without evidence and confrontation.

A better response would be:

“Let us establish what happened and help the families affected. Please preserve any evidence and report it. Do not circulate accusations or photographs of people whose involvement has not been established. Threats against either community deserve attention.”

Then comes the inward decision: am I seeking justice, or enjoying the certainty of having an enemy? If I ask the God of Abraham عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ for guidance, am I willing to abandon an accusation I wanted to believe?

Following the best of speech means carrying forward the truth and the legitimate concern, while refusing the falsehood, pressure and harmful instruction attached to them.

We have listened carefully. We have chosen deliberately. Our next words should make that choice visible.

It is to scrutinise and judge outwardly and also inwardly, checking our intention, and being receptive to guidance from God when it comes to us.

Sources

1. Qur’an 39:18; Ibn Kathir; Ma‘arif al-Qur’an.
2. Dayan Yitzhak Grossman, Bais HaVaad: Maimonides and Ovadia Yosef, with responsa references; Maimonides, Forbidden Foods 11:7.
3. Rabbi Yosef Kushner, Bais HaVaad.
4. Maimonides, Foundations of the Torah 9; Qur’an 33:40.
5. Qur’an 3:67; 29:46.
6. Qur’an 2:255; 2:127; 14:39.
7. Jeremiah 10:10; Psalm 65:3; Psalm 145:18.
8. Qur’an 2:186.
9. Qur’an 21:52.
10. Qur’an 2:131.
11. Qur’an 5:8.
12. Qur’an 26:89.
13. Sahih Muslim 91a.
14. Sahih al-Bukhari 6018; Sahih Muslim, Introduction 5.
15. al-fatihah
16. The God we worship.
17. Monotheism.