“And they say: The Beneficent has adopted a son. Glory be to Him! Nay, they are honored, slaves.”(Qur’an 21:26)
“But the Jews and the Christians say, “We are the children of Allah and His beloved.” Say, “Then why does He punish you for your sins?” Rather, you are human beings from among those He has created. He forgives whom He wills, and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them, and to Him is the [final] destination.” (Qur’an 5:18)
﷽
“They say: “(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!” Indeed you have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, That they should invoke a son (like-kind) for (Allah) Most Gracious. For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a (like-kind) son.” (Qur’an 19:88-92)
“Say: “Allah Is Absolutely One.” Who is independent of all and whom all depend on. He does not bring forth like-kind nor was he brought forth from like-kind; And there is none comparable to Him.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)
THE BIBLE’S POSITION
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever shall believe in him will not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16 King James Version)
What does begotten mean? (According to the English language)
Answer: Begotten is a past participle of beget.
Beget begot, begotten: To become the father of: sire
Sire 1: Father 2: The male parent of an animal (as a horse or dog) sired, siring, PRO-CREATE
Source:(The Merriam Webster’s Dictionary For Large Print Users)
Beget – give birth to
Source: (Webster’s Dictionary)
It is indeed blasphemous to ascribe offspring to the Almighty Allah. It is also insulting to the human intellect of any rational person. All Christians of every sect believe Jesus is the ‘Son of God’.
Allah declares that ascribing a son or any offspring to him is a thing most blasphemous.
We as human beings have children to pro-create our species, and to ensure that humanity survives. We will all die; therefore it is a necessity that sons and daughters take our place.
However, Allah is Ever-Living and needs no such means for survival.
Christians will object and say this is a misrepresentation of their beliefs. Yet, they will claim we know it means ‘Sired by God’, but that is not what we believe!
What does begotten mean? (According to the Greek language)
Their own dictionaries describe Christ Jesus as God’s ‘offspring’ and ‘stock’.
We will now walk through the development of this all-important Christian concept. We will show conclusively how an innocuous expression ‘Son of God‘ became Jesus ‘The Son of God’ in the very theologically loaded sense that it is today.
This very belief latter transforms into ‘God the Son’ the second member of the ever infamous Tri-theistic Trinity of the Athanasian Creed.
SONS BY THE TONS
As Sheikh Ahmed Deedat used to say:
The terms ‘Son of God’ and ‘children of God’ are often used throughout the Bible.
EXAMPLES:
“You are children of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 14:1)
“He shall build a house for my name, and he shall be my son, and I will be his father.” (I Chronicles 22:10)
“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.” (Job 1:6)
“I have said, you are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High” (Psalms 82:6-7)
“...For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.” (Jeremiah 31:9)
“Have we not one father?” “Has not one God created us?” (Malachi 2:10)
“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the sons of God” (Matthew 5:9)
“For unto which of the angels, said he at any time, You are my Son, this day have I begotten you? And again, I will be to him A FATHER, and he shall be tome A SON?” (Hebrews 1:5)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
In none of the above quotations are the terms ‘children of God’ or ‘Son of God’ understood to be non-allegorical. So why in the case of Jesus is he understood to be the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’.
If you will pay special attention to the last quotation of Hebrews 1:5 you will see that Jesus is ‘A’ Son and God is ‘A’ Father unto him. It does not say Jesus is ‘THE’ Son and God is ‘THE’ father of Jesus.
The reason why Jesus is ‘a’ son and God is ‘a’ father has to do with adoptionist theology.
Jesus a righteous man or ‘son of God’?
When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matthew 27:54)
“The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.”(Luke 23:47)
So we can see that Matthew and Luke report the centurion saying two different things? So is this a contradiction or an acceptable allegory? We would say that this is not a contradiction it is an acceptable allegory. That ‘son of God’ simply meant a righteous servant, one near to God.
Son of God or Slave of God?
“And they say: The Beneficent has adopted a son. Glory be to Him! Nay, they are honored, slaves.“(Qur’an 21:26)
“Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” (Acts 3:26 King James Version)
“To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.” (Acts 3:26 New King James Version)
Notice that the King James Version calls Jesus “his Son”,Whereas the New King James Version calls Jesus “His Servant” and whenever you see that word “servant” in the New Testament, it means slave.
WHAT IS ADOPTIONIST THEOLOGY?
Adoptinonist theology:
Adoptionist refers to a person who believes that Jesus became the Son of God at his baptism, while adoptionism is the theological doctrine that Jesus was born a mere mortal and was later adopted as the Son of God.
What are the text used in the Bible to support this view held by early Christians?
“I will be to him a father, and he shall be to Me a son; so that when he goes astray I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the sons of Adam.” (2 Samuel 7:14)
Prima Qur’an comments:
I am not currently his father but I will be.
He is not currently my son but he will be.
I will be to him ‘a’ father. Not ‘the’ father.
He will be to me ‘a’ son. Not ‘the’ son.
If he goes astray he will be chastened.
Here we have a concept of God appointing someone to be his son, or we may say a righteous servant.
This is also stated in Psalms 2:2 and Psalms 2:7 in a reference to King David.
“The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed.” (Psalms 2:2)
“I will declare the decree: the Lord has said unto me, You are my Son; This day have I begotten you.” (Psalms 2:7)
Note: It has this day I have begotten you. It is being said to King David while he is alive and a grown adult. David was appointed by adoption to be the ‘son of God’.
A THEOLOGY TAKES SHAPE
We will now show how ‘Son of God’ in New Testament theology takes a total and complete departure from how ‘Son of God’ was used in the Old Testament.
Now I will give you the proof text which shows how Jesus went from being the adopted ‘Son of God’ to the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’.
ADOPTIONIST THEOLOGY BEHIND THE BAPTISM OF JESUS
“And there came a voice from heaven, saying, YOU ARE my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:11)
Note: The voice from heaven addressed Jesus. The Greek for YOU is su (SU).
“And there came a voice from heaven, saying, “THIS IS my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Mathew 3:17)
Note: The voice from heaven talks about Jesus. The Greek for THIS IS outos (HOUTOS).
Question: Why the change in voice?
Why would one writer deliberately alter the wording of the text?
Answer: The theology!
Mark’s theology held that Jesus became the ‘Son of God’ at baptism, much like David’s coronation in 2 Samuel 7:14
Matthew’s theology held that Jesus was already the ‘Son of God’ based on the virgin birth.
So Jesus does not need to know who he is. Thus, the voice is changed from “You are my son” to an announcement to the ignorant crowd: “This is my son.”
The Qur’an and the Gospel of Luke reject Matthew’s claim.
Note: Look at the Gospel of Luke and Qur’an say in response to Matthew’s claim about Jesus being the ‘son of God’ based upon the virgin birth.
“And they had no child because Elizabeth was barren, and they were now well stricken in years.” (Luke 1:7)
“And Zacharias said unto the angel, how shall I know this? I am an old man, and wife is well stricken in years. And the angel answered said to him, “I am Gabriel who stands in the presence of God; I am sent to speak unto you and to show you glad tidings.” (Luke 1:18-19)
(His prayer was answered): “O Zakariya!” We give you good news of a son: His name shall be Yahya: on none by that name have We conferred distinction before.” He said: “O my Lord”! How shall I have a son, when my wife is barren, and I have grown quite decrepit from old age?” He said: “So (it will be) your Lord says, ‘that is easy for Me: I did indeed create you before when you had been nothing!‘” (Qur’an 19:7-9)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Allah asks Zechariah to reflect upon the fact that he was created indeed before he was nothing
“Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. She said: “I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah.” He said: ” I am only a messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a holy son. She said: “How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?” He said: “So (it will be): Your Lord says, ‘that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us’: It is a matter (so) decreed.” (Qur’an 19:16-21)
“The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was.” (Qur’an 3:59)
Prima Qur’an Comment: All glory to be to Allah! Allah explains things in a very simple manner for Christians. Allah says that Adam was made from dust(nothingness) and he was simply willed into being. Thus, as Allah (swt) made Adam from nothingness, likewise Christ Jesus, as the word of Allah, is the created word of Allah. Just as all of Allah’s words are created. Jesus, as the kalim of Allah, was created from nothingness.
THE CREATION OF 5 TYPES OF HUMAN BEINGS:
1) Adam was made without a man or a woman and not divine!
2) Eve made without a woman and not divine!
3) Jesus made without a man and not divine!
4) Isaac and John made while their parents were old, infertile, and not divine!
5) The rest of humanity is made of man and woman and not divine!
THE LUKE FACTOR…
Luke’s version of the baptism of Jesus:
“And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, YOU ARE my beloved Son; in you, I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:22)
Note:
1) Luke has the story of the virgin birth
2) Luke has Jesus addressed ‘you are’.
“A few MSS [“D”, “o”, “b”] and Patristic citations representing the “Western” text, have, instead of (You are my beloved Son, in you, I am well pleased), the words of Psalms 2:7, You are my son this day have I begotten you.
“Numerous expositors (e.g. W. Mason, Zahn, Klostermann, Harnack, Moffat, Streeter) accept this variant reading as the original. The majority then explain the alteration of the text from the fact that copyists regarded these words as a contradiction to the reality of the virgin birth.”
Source: [The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke by Norval Geldenhuys p. 148]
Prima Qur’an Comment: If we take the above evidence, then the baptism of Jesus (according to Luke) would look like this:
“And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, “You are my son, this day have I begotten you”. (Luke 3:22)
This would mean that Jesus became the ‘son of God’ at his baptism as an adult in the same way David became the ‘son of God’ as an adult.
Let’s continue…
“More important still is the fact that the heavenly voice which greeted Jesus at his baptism hailed him in the opening words of the decree of Psalms 2:7 ‘You are my Son’ Mark 1:11”
“Indeed, the “Western” text of Luke 3:22 represents the fuller wording from Psalms 2:7 which is quoted here by the author of Hebrews 1:5”
“For unto which of the angels said he at any time, You are my Son. “This day have I begotten you?” (Hebrews 1:5)
“The words were evidently in widespread use as a testimonial in the apostolic age, as Acts 13:33 bears witness, and not only these words but the other parts of psalms were given a messianic interpretation, as may be seen from the quotation and explanation of its first two verses in Acts 4:25.
Source: [The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews FF. Bruce]
“God has fulfilled the same unto us, their children, in that he has raised Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalms, You are my Son, this day have I begotten you.” (Acts 13:33)
“Why does the heathen rage, and people imagine a vain thing? “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his ANOINTED.” (Psalms 2:1-2)
“Who, by the mouth of your SERVANT David, has said, Why DID the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? “The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his CHRIST.” (Acts 4:25-26)
Note: Some important points need to be made.
David was called ANOINTED (Christ). Also, Luke says David was a SERVANT (Slave) of God. This also means Jesus is like David: He is Anointed, meaning appointed by God. Jesus is also the Servant (slave) of God!
Let’s continue…
“Likewise, certain early manuscripts of Luke quote all of Psalms 2:7: Luke 3:22 in Codex Bezae, and certain old Latin Manuscripts used by Justin, Clement, Origen, and Augustine read, “You are my Son this day have I begotten you.”
But interestingly, Luke also used Psalms 2:7, in a speech composed for Paul.
In Paul’s theology, Jesus was “DECLARED to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4)
“Luke apparently knew of this Pauline teaching for he has Paul quoting Psalms 2:7 as a speech uttered to Jesus at his resurrection, and not his baptism! Acts 13:32-33
“For Luke and Paul Psalms 2:7 is a RESURRECTION prophecy and not a BAPTISM prophecy.”
LUKE: He sees the water Jesus is baptized in as ‘the grave’. When Jesus comes out of the water, it is his ‘resurrection.’ The water is symbolic: of ‘being washed by the blood’ of Jesus.
MARK: believed Jesus to be the adopted ‘Son of God’. In the same way, David was the adopted ‘Son of God’, Thus Jesus became the ‘Son of God’ at his baptism.
MATTHEW: believed Jesus was the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’ based on the virgin birth.
LUKE AND PAUL: believe Jesus was the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’ based on his resurrection from the dead.
Note: Paul said Jesus was ‘Declared’ to be the ‘Son of God’ not that HE WAS the ‘Son of God’
Source: Romans 1:3
What do Christians mean: Jesus is the ‘Son of God’?
Examination time!
We have already seen what begotten means. Not only this but every modern translation of the Bible does away with the term ‘begotten‘?
Why?
Answer:
1) Because David was called, ‘the begotten Son of God’: in Psalms (2:7). You cannot have Jesus be the ‘only-begotten’ when David is already begotten.
2)Hebrews 11:17
“By faith, Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the promise offered up his only-begotten son.”
a) This is a flat contradiction because Ishmael was begotten before Isaac was.
b) Or this is not to be understood as allegorical.
We know this is not understood literally. Isaac is not the only-begotten son; just as Jesus is not the non-allegorical ‘son of God’.
Question: Is Jesus ‘eternally begotten’ by the father?
Answer: No!
Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, You are my Son?” This day have I begotten you?”
Prima Qur’an Comment: Jesus cannot be ‘eternally begotten’ by the father when this passage clearly states ‘This day’ have I begotten you. Indeed, one would wonder what day that is.
Tertullian did not believe in the eternality of the son.
For example, to me, it is very clear that Tertullian did not believe in the eternality of the son based upon the following:
“Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father.”
When the Church decided upon the doctrine of Tri-theism they had to make Jesus co-equal and co-eternal with the father in so doing the doctrine of adoption created huge problems for them. Not only this but if Jesus was indeed begotten ‘this day’ he would not be co-eternal. This is why the Church called Jesus ‘eternally begotten’.
There is no Greek text to support the idea that Jesus is ‘eternally begotten‘ That is why to meet the strong arguments of Bishop Arius his fellow Christians could only respond with two things:
1. Violence.
2. Use an oxymoron ‘eternally begotten‘.
The Greek text is monogenes
How do other Bibles translate John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only son (or the unique son of God), that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have life eternal.” [The Living Bible]John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” [New International Version] John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” [Revised Standard Version] John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” [The New American Bible] John 3:16
Note: All of the above translations say something like ‘Only Son’ or ‘Unique Son’.
a) Either this is a flat contradiction because, as shown from Hebrews 1:5 Jesus is ‘A’ Son not ‘Thee’ Son of God.
b) Or this is to be understood as allegorical!
We know this is not to be taken nonallegorically. Jesus is not the only son because, as already proven, God has many ‘sons’.
As far as the ‘Unique Son’ is concerned, every ‘Son of God’ is unique! So, once again, Christians are at a loss to explain how Jesus is the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’.
Remember that Jesus never once claimed to be the ‘only son’ of God!
Christians started to see the problem with John 3:16 translations. In a classic debate between Christian televangelist Jimmy Swaggart and Muslim debater Ahmed Deedat, Swaggart anticipated a possible question of Deedat by saying the following:
@ 8:53 minutes “Now I want to start this off tonight by quoting a passage of scripture that Mr. Deedat and myself disagree somewhat over. But which is one of if not the dearest passage in the word of God to the world of Christendom. Found in St. John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only unique Son (Fooled you there Mr. Deedat), his only unique son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
The Christians should repent to Allah for every ascribing a non-allegorical son to him. Glory be to Allah who has not adopted a son or daughter! It can be seen how Jesus was called the ‘Son of God’ in the same way that previous people were called ‘Sons of God’.
However, this concept slowly evolved from being the adopted son of God into Jesus being the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’ and eventually led to him being ‘eternally begotten God’
May Allah bring the people out of the great darkness into the light. May Allah guide us to the truth!
“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.”(Qur’an 5:83)
“Also, mention when the angels said, “O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good news of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary – distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near to Allah. He will speak to the people in the cradle and in maturity and will be of the righteous. “She said, “My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?” The angel said, “Such is Allah; He creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is. (Qur’an 3:45-47)
﷽
“Also, mention, in the book the story of Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place toward the east and she took, in seclusion from them, a screen. Then We sent to her Our Angel, and he represented himself to her as a well-proportioned man. She said, “Indeed, I seek refuge in the Most Merciful from you, so leave me, if you should be fearing of Allah. He said, “I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you news of a pure boy. “She said, “How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste? “He said, “Thus it will be; your Lord says, ‘it is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter already decreed.” (Qur’an 19:16-21)
As Shaykh Ahmed Deedat (r) has mentioned in his Pamphlet “Is the Bible God’s Word?” page 11:
We do not have the time and space to go into the tens of thousands of — grave or minor —defects that the authors of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) have attempted to revise. We leave that privilege to the Christian scholars of the Bible. Here I will endeavor to cast just a cursory glance at a “half-a-dozen” or so of those “minor” changes.
1. “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14 – AV) The indispensable “VIRGIN” in the above verse has now been replaced in the RSV with the phrase “a young woman,” which is the correct translation of the Hebrew word almah. Almah is the word that has occurred all along in the Hebrew text and NOT bethulah, which means VIRGIN. This correction is only to be found in the English language translation, as the RSV is only published in this tongue. For the African and the Afrikaner, the Arab and the Zulu, in fact, in the 1500 other languages of the world, Christians are made to continue to swallow the misnomer “VIRGIN.”
The argument goes (from the Jews) and the atheists, for that matter, that if the Gospel writer ‘Matthew’ had been inspired and directed by the Holy Spirit, then he (Matthew) would not have relied upon the Jewish Septuagint for the source of his quote.
Technically, the word almah more than not was used for a young woman that could be married. Being a young, unmarried woman, it was often understood that she was not married and thus, a virgin.
However, those who argue against this state that the word ‘bethulah’, which actually does mean virgin, should have been used in place of ‘almah’, which has the possibility of being a virgin.
The website: Jews for Jesus has the following to say:
We as Muslims could agree with our Christian apologist and say look, ‘almah’likely means ‘virgin’ and that is good enough.
The reason that it is not good enough is that the author of the ‘Gospel According to Matthew’ had made some huge blunders when being reliant upon the Greek Septuagint.
We will give a clear example: Believe us, there are many!
“When they drew near Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass tethered, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them here to me. And if anyone should say anything to you, reply, ‘The master has need of them.’ Then he will send them at once. “This happened so that what had been spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled: Say to daughter Zion, ‘Behold, your king comes to you, meek and riding on an ass, and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’ “The disciples went and did as Jesus had ordered them. They brought the ass and the colt and laid their cloaks over them, and he sat upon them. The huge crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and strewed them on the road. The crowds preceding him and those following kept crying out and saying: “Hosanna to the Son of David; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; hosanna in the highest.” And when he entered Jerusalem the whole city was shaken and asked, “Who is this? “And the crowds replied, “This is Jesus the prophet, from Nazareth in Galilee.” (Matthew 21:1-11)
This is disastrous. It is disastrous on several accounts. Whoever wrote the Gospel according to Matthew couldn’t have known the original Hebrew text. Instead, the Greek Septuagint was relied upon resulting in the mistaken belief that the so-called “prophecy” was about Jesus riding upon two donkeys!
Again, look at what Christian scholars have had to say about the matter.
4-5] The prophet: this fulfillment citation is actually composed of two distinct Old Testament texts, Isaiah 62:11 (Say to daughter Zion) and Zechariah 9:9. The ass and the colt are the same animal in the prophecy, mentioned twice in different ways, the common Hebrew literary device of poetic parallelism. Matthew takes them as two is one of the reasons why some scholars think that he was a Gentile rather than a Jewish Christian who would presumably not make that mistake (see Introduction).
7] Upon them: upon the two animals; an awkward picture resulting from Matthew’s misunderstanding of the prophecy.
So why could this be a Jewish contention against the Qur’an?
The Core of the Critique.
The criticism, as we’ve laid out, follows this logic:
The Christian Doctrine is Based on a Mistranslation: The Christian belief in a virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 relies on the Greek Septuagint’s translation of the Hebrew word almah (young woman) as parthenos (virgin), rather than the more precise Hebrew word for virgin, bethulah.
Matthew’s Error Demonstrates Human Authorship: The author of the Gospel of Matthew (who used the Septuagint) further demonstrates his human fallibility by misreading Zechariah 9:9, thinking it describes two animals (an ass and a colt) instead of one animal described with poetic parallelism.
The Qur’an is Therefore Derivative and Human: Since the Qur’an also affirms the virgin birth, the critic argues that its author simply borrowed this “mistaken” Christian doctrine, which itself is based on a Greek mistranslation of a Hebrew text. This, they claim, proves the Qur’an is a human document from the 7th century, not a divine revelation.
The assumption that the Jew could make is that because Muslims believe in the virgin birth of Mary (May Allah honour her) that the “author of the Qur’an” simply copied the Christian doctrine — which in turn is based upon the Greek Septuagint and has no knowledge of the Hebrew text. Presumably, this makes the Qur’an all too human and not of divine authorship.
The Qur’an is Independent and Authoritative, Not Derivative. This is the most critical point. The Qur’an does not seek to prove the virgin birth by referencing the Hebrew Bible. It does not say, “And this happened to fulfill what was said by the prophet Isaiah…” as Matthew does.
Instead, the Qur’an narrates the event as a direct, fact revealed by Allah.
We as Muslims have a straightforward response to this. That is that whoever wrote the ‘Gospel according to Matthew’ was quote-mining the Jewish sacred text to get legitimacy for Jesus as the Messiah. Whereas, for us as Muslims, the Qur’an stands independent of any justification for the miraculous birth of Christ Jesus.
Muslims could agree with Christian apologists that almah can imply virginity. However, the Islamic position is stronger: We have no theological need to enter that debate. Our belief is not contingent on the interpretation of a single word in a text that could have been altered. Our belief is based solely on the clear, unambiguous words of the Qur’an:
“She said, ‘How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?’ He said, ‘Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, ‘It is easy for Me…””(Qur’an 19:20-21)
The Qur’an uses the phrase “while no man has touched me” (وَلَمْ يَمْسَسْنِي بَشَرٌ), which is an explicit, clear statement of virginity that avoids the ambiguity of the Hebrew almah altogether
In other words, Christ Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. This is our belief as Muslims who believe in the words of the Qur’an.
This was a real event that took place. Where we part with the Christians is this:
The Christians in particular whoever wrote the ‘Gospel according to Matthew’ felt a need to justify this event by reference to the Hebrew scriptures albeit reliance upon the Greek Septuagint.
Conclusion:
The mistakes of Matthew highlight the human process of trying to fit Jesus into Old Testament prophecies, sometimes through forced interpretations and errors from using a translation.
The Qur’an, by contrast, displays none of this. It is entirely self-contained and authoritative. It does not make interpretive errors about Zechariah or Isaiah because it does not reference them in the first place. It simply states the truth of the event as revealed by Allah.
Therefore, the argument that the Qur’an “copied” a mistake actually proves the opposite: its independence from the textual corruptions and human errors that affected the previous scriptures. The Qur’an’s account of the virgin birth is not evidence of its human origin but rather of its divine origin, as it provides a pristine, uncorrupted narrative free from the dilemmas of biblical scholarship.
As Muslims, our belief in this stands apart from needing any proof text or citation from previous scriptures. With Allah is the success!
May Allah (swt) guide the sincere among them so that they do not perish in ever lasting hellfire!
“O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Isa, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So, believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.” (Qur’an 4:171)
﷽
The name of God and the name of Jesus are distinctly different.
“The victor I will make into a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will never leave it again. On him, I will inscribe the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, as well as my new name.” (Revelation 3:12)
Prima Qur’an Comment:
From the above text it can be seen that ‘the name of my God‘ AND ‘my new name‘ are distinctly different.
This becomes obvious from the fact that Jesus is a common name, like John, James, or Peter. The above text of Revelation3:12 was taken from a ‘Red Lettered‘ New Testament, where the words of Jesus are in red.
JESUS IS NOT THE NAME OF GOD…
Many times, our Christians tell us that Jesus is the name of God. It is a name ‘above every name’. After all, how can a person have a personal relationship with God if you don’t know the name of God? I guess that sounds reasonable.
However, what most Christians are not aware of is the fact that the Hebrew language does not have a ‘J‘. So, if the Jews spoke Hebrew, you know they didn’t pronounce Jesus with a ‘J‘.
The other point that is not realized so readily by our Christian sisters and brothers is that Jesus is really quite an ordinary name. It has no power in and of itself. It was a very common name then and it’s still a common name.
In fact, seeing that Spanish is ranked as the number 3 language in the world, Jesus, pronounced ‘Hey Zeus,‘ is a very common name among men in the Latin American community.
So, this is a rather uneventful name. It would be the equivalent of calling someone Chaz, or Lester or Herbert in English.
Feel free to go to Google Translate and listen to how the name ‘Jesus’ is pronounced.
Go to Google Translate and just listen to the name “Jesus” as it is pronounced in Spanish and Greek.
Go to Google Translate and just listen to the name “Jesus” as it is pronounced in Spanish and Greek.
Even more revealing is the fact that Jesus is a ‘bastardized’ (apologies for the terminology) Latin version of the name Yehoshua in Hebrew, or in other words, Joshua.
The name Yeshua appears 29 times in the Tanach.
Yehoshua (Joshua) of Nun is called Yeshua in Nechemyah (Nehemiah) 8:17. Yeshua is the name of the Cohain HaGadol (the high priest) in the time of Zerubavel in Ezra 3:2. It is the name of a Levite under King Hizkiyah (Hezekiah) in 2 Chronicles 31:15. There is even a city called Yeshua in the negev of Yehudah in Nechemyah11:26.
Yeshua is also a shortened version of the word Yehoshua, much like Bill is for William.
Before anyone gets angry with us using the word ‘bastardized’ in relationship to Jesus (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him), one must realize that the word ‘bastardized’ means—to modify, especially by introducing discordant or disparate elements.
After all, you take a very common name, Joshua, which means — ‘God is my salvation’ and turn it into this Latin that sounds a lot like a former Greek god ‘Zeus’.
Remember when the evangelist screams out in the name of ‘Jeeeee zuuus’. Or the Spanish speaker yells out on stage, “In the name of ‘Hey Zeus’.” Jesus /Zeus.
Hey Zeus. Hail Zeus.
HEY ZEUS! HAIL ZEUS!
In the Qur’an the son of Mary is called ‘Isa‘ or ‘Esau‘.
Recall that Hebrew was a dead language for a long time. It was only when Eliezer Ben Yehuda used the Arabic language to help revive Hebrew that it became a vibrant language again.
“One prominent pioneer was Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, the famed Jewish lexicographer widely hailed as the reviver of modern Hebrew, and whose revivalist legacy rested on a genuine recognition of the essential role of Arabic in the rebirth and resurrection of modern Hebrew.“
It is quite possible that some Christians may find it strange to use the name ‘Esau‘ or ‘Isa‘ in place of ‘Jesus‘ as there is a passage in the Bible that says that ‘God hates Esau‘.
“The oracle of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi. “I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated.” (Malachi 1:1-3)
God hates Jesus but loves Jacob?
Imagine if in place of the word ‘Esau’ you had the word ‘Joshua’. You would have a very interesting passage in the Bible of God saying, “But Jesus, I hate.”
Let’s continue with Eliezer Ben Yehuda.
Since Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic are all based upon the same Semitic vowel system, Eliezer used the Arabic language.
A language that was still living and had wide currency to decipher the pronunciation and understanding of the Hebrew language.
“Jesus” was a common name back in the day. In Acts 13:6 there was a magician named Bar Jesus.
“When they had travelled through the whole island as far as Paphos, they met a magician named Bar-Jesus who was a Jewish false prophet.”
In Colossians 4:11 there was a contemporary of Paul called Jesus-Justus
“And Jesus, who is called Justus, who are of the circumcision; these alone are my co-workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me.”
Another interesting example of two people called “Jesus” side by side in the following text:
So, when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” (Matthew 27:17).
So, the people had the choice to have Jesus ‘son of the father‘ or Jesus ‘called Messiah‘ killed.
So, the name “Jesus” was a common name, like John, James or Mary.
This doesn’t sound like a ‘Name Above All Names’ to me. It sounds rather common and uneventful.
Do Christians Feel Power in The Name of Joshua?
We are whether we can call upon the name of Joshua and be saved? It is, however, the same as “Jesus”. Why should only the ‘bastardized‘ form of the Latin version of ‘Yehoshua‘ be the only name for salvation?
In other words, is the Christian mission only done in English? No it is not!
So, if there are Jews, wouldn’t they be screaming out ‘Yehoshua‘ in the congregation?
That being the case, why couldn’t they scream out ‘Joshua‘ as it is the Anglicized form?
Joshua Christ?
Imagine using terms like Joshua Christ! Imagine Christian missionaries asking people to accept faith in Joshua? Imagine Benny Hinn jumping up and down and healing people in the name of Joshua! Or imagine John Hagee being slain in the spirit of Joshua Christ!
What about the name Immanuel?
Immanuel is also a common Jewish name which means ‘God is with us‘.
Maher-shalal-hash-baz was called Immanuel in Isaiah 8:8
“It shall pass into Judah and flood it all throughout up to the neck it shall reach; It shall spread its wings the full width of your land, Immanuel!”
So, for Christians to say, “Hey look, there is a prophecy that says he will be called Immanuel, We can tell them that Maher-shalal-hash-baz was also called Immanuel.”
In Matthew 1:23 we read: “Behold, the virgin shall be with a child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us“.”
That this is an example of a failed prophecy plain pure and simple. It’s amazing the lengths that Christian apologists will go through to make this all add up.
In the end, I think that the position of Islam and the Qur’an is very clear. ‘Isa is an Arabized form of the word ‘Esau’. He was born of a virgin named Mariam (Mary).
There is much to be said about the fact that Christians use a name like Jesus (a common name like John, James, or Mary) when describing the ineffable name of the creator.
Maybe there is a way out of this. Maybe, after all, The Creator is not a person, much less person(s).
Since, after all, the words ‘person’ and ‘personality’ come from the Greek word ‘persona’ which means ‘a mask’. Think about it! Tri-Theist Christians believe in a God that is One Being that wears three masks.
In the end, “Jesus” is just a common name, like Chuck, or Daryl or Lester.
We sincerely hope people will read the Qur’an and learn as much as they can about Islam. We hope that Allah Most High opens the breasts and hearts of humanity and that Allah Most Merciful guides us all to what he loves.
“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.” (Qur’an 5:83)
“For the truth stands out clearly from falsehood.” (Qur’an 2:256)
﷽
Let us see which of you reading this are quick-witted to spot the problem. Given what we know about human reproduction, what is the obvious error in sending brother after brother to impregnate a woman that fails to get pregnant?
Source: (Matthew 22:23-32)
“If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.” (Deuteronomy 25:5)
“Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.”But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.” (Genesis 38:8-10)
“That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” (Matthew 22:23-28)
You can replace the seven brothers with ten brothers or even 25 brothers if you like.
At what point does one realize that these men are not firing blanks but that this woman is infertile!
The woman has some type of medical condition that is preventing her from getting pregnant. Now if someone wants to raise an objection, stating that in Genesis 38:8-10 Onan was spilling his semen on the ground (coitus interruptus) and that perhaps all the brothers were doing that, it doesn’t help the case either.
Did not have the foresight to realize that people would do this, evading their responsibility?
If the story of Onan was known, the men would realize that God would strike them dead. Thus, the ever looming wrath of God.
Surely the women are not so gullible as to not know whether a man is ejaculating in them or not.
This law was before modern medicine in which we know that both a man and a woman may have issues of fertility. Given the low esteem that women are generally afforded in the Bible, it is not at all surprising to see the power of pro-creation as something that man is responsible for.
If Jesus was God, he would be aware that both men and women have a part to play in human reproduction.
In the majority Christian view, Jesus shares the essence (being) of the Father and the Holy Spirit, which means that He (Jesus) gave those laws to Moses, proving further that he cannot be God and that the sacred text of the Jews and Christians are not free from egregious errors.
Another point to take note of:
The text has Jesus (as) say:
“Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.” “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” (Matthew 22:29-30)
It looks like Jesus is in error for not knowing the scriptures!
However, the scriptures say:
“And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” (Genesis 6:1-2)
Jesus claims people will not marry nor be given in marriage being like the angels. Yet the angels themselves took human women as wives.
Now, watch out for the curveball they (some Christians will throw you) because they will say, “Oh, the text says,” Sons of God” not angels. But angels are the sons of God.
You can see where they are used interchangeably here:
“One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.” (Job 1:6 New International Version)
“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.” (Job 1:6 King James Version)
Lastly, if they persist that sons of God refer to men, then this shows you it is an appellation referring to mortal human beings without any divine connotation.
The Bible’s treatment of fertility is anthropologically conditioned and not scientifically precise.
From a modern scientific perspective, if multiple brothers fail to impregnate the same woman, it is statistically improbable that all men are infertile (assuming they are fertile with other women). The most logical conclusion is that the woman has a fertility issue. This highlights an ancient misunderstanding of reproduction, where infertility was often attributed solely to the woman. However, the levirate law implicitly places the burden on the man’s lineage to continue, ignoring potential female factors.
“That is from the news of the unseen which We reveal to you. And you were not with them when they cast their pens as to which of them should be responsible for Mary. Nor were you with them when they disputed.”(Qur’an 3:44)
﷽
“This is the Book in which there is no doubt, a guide for the righteous. Those who believe in the unseen, and perform the prayers, and give from what We have provided for them. And those who believe in what was revealed to you, and in what was revealed before you, and are certain of the Hereafter.” (Qur’an 2:3-4)
The Qur’an is a book of which there is no doubt. It is for those who believe in the unseen. It is for those who are certain in the life to come. It is for those who believe in what was revealed before the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Those who are skeptical of those points will quite naturally arrive at different conclusions. So that is of no consequence for the believer.
“As for those who persist in disbelief, it is the same whether you warn them or not—they will never believe. Allah has sealed their hearts and their hearing, and their sight is covered. They will suffer a tremendous punishment.” (Qur’an 2:6-7)
Now, historians and orientalists cannot speak of the supra natural as these are matters of belief. They are beyond their point of historical investigation. However, we are always thrilled when we find historians and Orientalists corroborating the testimony of narratives in the Qur’an by finding manuscripts or parchments of information that, though not ad verbatim, closely mimic what Allah (swt) has revealed before. This is the understanding of the believer.
Do we find some information from various cultures that preceded the coming of the Blessed Prophet (saw) that seems to corroborate the beliefs of Islam? Yes! That is not scary! That is exciting!
Recall what Allah (swt) himself informed us of:
“We surely sent a messenger to every community, saying, “Worship Allah and shun false gods.” But some of them were guided by Allah, while others were destined to stray. So travel throughout the land and see the fate of the deniers!” (Qur’an 16:36)
Remember we are not responsible for the conclusions or perceptions of others.
If we look at the above graph. We can see that in block B the apparent (the dhahir) is that there are parchments, manuscripts, scrolls, oral traditions, inscriptions etc. that come before the Qur’an. However, when we look at block B, the haqiqah (the reality) is that Allah’s knowledge of what really happened precedes the information in B.Because of that reality, what is in C (The Qur’an) actually precedes the information in B. This is precisely why this hobbyhorse of orientalist and those who use the historical critical method is of absolutely no consequence for the believing Muslim.
We Muslims have been the first critics of our own sources. The clash of historical narratives between the Ibadi, Sunni and Shi’a is proof positive of this. The grading of the ahadith and the mention of variants in the transmission of the Qur’an have not come from people who lost faith, agnostics or atheists. They came from us, as believers. Subhan’Allah!
These other Johnny Come Lately types, HCM, etc., welcome to the party!
History and Miracles.
We don’t believe that miracles are historical. This does not mean that we do not believe that miracles did not happen. We just don’t believe that history can capture them.
Case in point. An Indian king, Cheraman Perumal, was reported to have seen the moon split. History can report such data, but it does not necessarily confirm nor interpret the data.
This particular entry is directed towards Christians. It is rather shameful that they have taken the approach that they have in these matters. Given that they too claim to believe in the unseen. They claim to believe in a Creator that can narrate past events that present people were not privy to.
“Then she brought him to her people, carrying him. They said, “O Mary, you have certainly done a thing unprecedented. O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste.”But she pointed to the babe. They said: “How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?” He said: “I am indeed a servant of Allah: He has given me revelation and made me a prophet; And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I will be and has enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live; (He) has made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable; So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)”! Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.”(Qur’an 19:27-34)
“When Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, remember My favor upon you and upon your mother when I supported you with the Pure Spirit and you spoke to the people in the cradle and in maturity; and [remember] when I taught you writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and when you designed from clay like the form of a bird with My permission, then you breathed into it, and it became a bird with My permission, and you healed the blind and the leper with My permission; and when you brought forth the dead with My permission; and when I restrained the Children of Israel from [killing] you when you came to them with clear proofs and those who disbelieved among them said, “This is not but obvious magic.”(Qur’an 5:110)
“And a messenger to the Children of Israel, who will say, ‘Indeed I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I design for you from clay like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by permission of Allah. And I cure the blind and the leper, and I give life to the dead – by permission of Allah. And I inform you of what you eat and what you store in your houses. Indeed in that is a sign for you, if you are believers.” (Qur’an 3:49)
Prima Qur’an comments:
In this article, we will give a response to those Christians who use as a polemic against Muslims the claim that the Qur’an contains apocryphal material in it and therefore cannot be a revelation from Allah (swt).
Now, of course, they will claim that there are more than the three verses of the Qur’an we quoted above as being from apocryphal material. However, we have chosen to focus on these three, as they are most often used by Christian polemicists in debates with Muslims.
Now, personally, we find this particular line of Christian attack against Islam amusing. However, they have to eventually come up with something, right?
Now let’s look at and listen carefully to what these Christians are actually disputing with us about.
*Note*
They are not raising the issue of “healing the blind.“
They are not raising issues against “curing people affected by leprosy.”
They are not raising issues against “give life to the dead.”
They are not disputing these points because they are miracles attributed to Christ Jesus that they find in their accepted canonical text. We will come to the term canonical in a moment.
What they are disputing is:
Jesus speaking as an infant
Jesus creating birds out of clay
Why do they dispute about these miracles?
Because they are not in what they accept to be their canonical text.
So what do the terms apocryphal and canonical mean?
Canonical in relation to Christian scriptures means:
“A biblical canon or canon of scripture is a set of texts (or “books”) which a particular religious community regards as authoritative scripture. … Believers consider canonical books as inspired by God or as expressive of the authoritative history of the relationship between God and his people.”
Apocryphal in relation to Christian scriptures means:
“Biblical or related writings not forming part of the accepted canon of Scripture; or writings or reports not considered genuine.”
So, if a Christian were to come to us and say that these statements in the Qur’an are found in apocryphal sources, the first thing you have to keep in mind that what they are actually saying isthat it is apocryphal according to their particular sect of Christianity!
The reason that is important is as follows: As we write this to you on 11/4/2024, Christendom has still not settled the issue of what is and is not apocryphal for the whole of Christianity.
Glaring examples are the following:
Depending on how you want to word it, you could say that the Protestants have 7 fewer books in their version of the Old Testament. Or you could say that the Roman Catholics have 7 extra books in their Old Testament that they accept to be inspired and not apocryphal.
Yet the Orthodox Church has additional Old Testament texts (or if you want to be neutral, the Protestants and Catholics have less). The same can be said for the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
The same goes for the New Testament.
What is canonical is an issue that is still not settled among them.
The Chaldean Syrian Church does not accept the following as canon:
In fact, many Protestant Christians have declared Mark 16:8-20, & John 7:53–8:11 to not be canonical.
You have to wonder about the Protestant Christian theologians like John Calvin, Martin Luther, and others who most likely held such passages to be canonical. Yet there are Christians who do not agree with the idea that such passages are non-canonical. These Christians very much believe that Mark 16:8-20, &John 7:53–8:11 are inspired scripture.
So what is the point that is being made?
The point is that when a Christian says to us that those verses in the Qur’an are allegedly taken from apocryphal sources, it is important to understand that:
That though it may be apocryphal for that particular Christian, we can’t say for certain that it was apocryphal for the other Christians.
To keep in mind that what is and is not apocryphal has been and continues to be an internal dispute among Christians.
If the Christian is to counter by saying, “Can you name for me any Christian denomination today that accepts such and such text as canonical?”
The answer to that is: “No we can’t.” Many Christian sects and denominations over time have long perished. Most often the information we do have about them comes from their opponents.
What is also interesting, and we hope Muslims reading this bear in mind, is that no Christian committed to a consistent world view in which the supra-natural happens can tell us that:
Jesus did not speak as an infant.
Jesus did not create birds out of clay.
This assertion is also supported by the text they accept as canon. Namely, the following:
“And Jesus did many other miracles in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book: But these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name” (John 20:30-31).
Prima Qur’an comments:
Now this writer, apparently inspired by Allah, felt that it was necessary to inform his readers that Jesus did many other miracles that are not contained within this book.
“There are many more things that Jesus did. If all of them were written down, I suppose that not even the world itself would have space for the books that would be written.” (John 21:25)
Prima Qur’an comments: Though we can all agree this statement is hyperbole, yet it is obvious that the writer knew that there was much more information about Jesus that could be shared.
Now, a possible Christian objection to our understanding of John 20:30-31 is that ‘the many other miracles that are not present in this book‘ could only be a reference to the miracles listed in Matthew, Mark, Luke that are not in the Gospel according to John.
The response to this is that it is simply an assumption.
It could be that:
It could be a reference only to the miracles present in Matthew, Mark, Luke that are not in the Gospel, according to John.
It could be a reference to miracles that are not present in any of those Gospel accounts.
It could be a reference to miracles present in Matthew, Mark, Luke as well as those not present in any Gospel accounts.
Christians could well ask: “Why wouldn’t these accounts of Jesus speaking as an infant or making birds out of clay make it into any of the Four Gospels commonly accepted among all of Christendom?”
Well, we have a clue about that from a text we have already mentioned.
“And Jesus did many other miracles in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name” (John 20:30-31).
Prima Qura’n comments: This Gospel writer is telling us that he is informed about other miracles, but the seven particular miracles that he has selected is so that we may believe that Jesus is:
The Christ
The Son of God
Having eternal life through his name.
So, in the example of this Gospel writer, we have the reasons plainly stated why some miracles were chosen over others. Whereas for the other Gospels it’s hard to discern why they may have left out certain miracles.
For example, John’s Gospel includes the story of Lazarus rising from the dead. I’m puzzled why such an awesome event is not recorded by the other Gospels. Or Jesus turning water into wine is only included in the Gospel, according to John.
Equally puzzling is the following awesome account, which is not recorded by any ancient documents outside of Matthew itself.
“And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, ‘Truly this was the Son of God’” (Matthew. 27:51-54).
There are no extra-biblical sources that mention this awesome event. Surely witnessing such an event would have been worthy of mention somewhere. In fact, this particular text created controversy even among conservative Christians when New Testament scholar and associate professor of theology Michael Licona raised questions about this text.
You can read about where Christians have done some damage control concerning this at the following:
So, again, going back to the Christian inquiry into why some awesome and miraculous events are recorded by some sources and not others, we can only surmise as to the motives behind this.
Why is it Jesus speaking as an infant is recorded in some sources and not others?
Why is Jesus making birds out of clay recorded in some sources and not others?
Why is it that the Gospel of Mark is now considered not to have a resurrection narrative, but other sources have it?
Why is it that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead from some sources and not others?
Why is it that Jesus turned water into wine from some sources and not others?
Why is that only the Gospel of Matthew has this narrative about the mass resurrections of people appearing to many in the city?
Another interesting point to note is that, in the case of the Christian tradition that many of us will encounter today, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants of many types, we have 30 years of the life of Christ Jesus that is completely missing altogether!
“Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli.” (Luke 3:23)
So imagine all the people who needed to be healed, those who needed salvation, and what does the current Christian canon tell us about the early life of Jesus? Its silence about the early life of Jesus is awkward, to say the least.
It is honestly both shocking and disappointing that Christians would use these types of arguments against the Qur’an. It absolutely reeks of atheism, smacks of radical skepticism, and is stepped in a worldview bereft of the supra-natural.
For us, as Muslims, we are informed about what happened concerning Jesus through divine revelation. As Allah (swt) says to the Blessed Messenger (saw):
“That is from the news of the unseen which We reveal to you. And you were not with them when they cast their pens as to which of them should be responsible for Mary. Nor were you with them when they disputed.” (Qur’an 3:44)
Also, notice that when the Christians make their particular claim about the Qur’an, they more often than not do put up the sources which they claim the Qur’an takes the following from:
Speaking as an infant.
Creating birds out of clay.
We also find it interesting that Muslims don’t ask them for their sources.
The Christian polemicist usually has two sources in mind for this:
Those sources are: The Infancy Gospel of Thomas & The Proevangelian of James
“This little child Jesus when he was five years old was playing at the ford of a brook: and he gathered together the waters that flowed there into pools, and made them straightway clean, and commanded them by his word alone. 2 And having made soft clay, he fashioned thereof twelve sparrows. And it was the Sabbath when he did these things (or made them). And there were also many other little children playing with him.
“And a certain Jew when he saw what Jesus did, playing upon the Sabbath day, departed straightway and told his father Joseph: Lo, your child is at the brook, and he has taken clay and fashioned twelve little birds and has polluted the Sabbath day. 4 And Joseph came to the place and saw: and cried out to him, saying: Why are you doing these things on the Sabbath, which it is not lawful to do? But Jesus clapped his hands together and cried out to the sparrows and said to them: Go! and the sparrows took their flight and went away chirping. 5 And when the Jews saw it they were amazed, and departed and told their chief men that which they had seen Jesus do.”
Source: (Infancy Gospel of Thomas Chapter 2:1-5)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
This narrative speaks about Jesus creating 12 birds. The emphasis on the number 12 is there twice. This must relate to the 12 disciples. Whereas in the Qur’an we find no mention of this.
“Indeed I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I design for you from clay like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by permission of Allah.” (Qur’an 3:49)
There is no mention of Jesus doing this act on the Sabbath Day. There is no mention of Jesus creating 12 birds. It is interesting to note that the Qur’andoes not name the number of Jesus’ disciples. Christians have not addressed this.
It would be interesting to know where the writer(s) of the ‘Infancy Gospel of Thomas’ got their information from. The earliest possible date of authorship is 80 A. D to 250 A. D. This is also roughly the time that the date of authorship is ascribed to ‘The Epistle to Titus‘, which is considered canonical by Christians today. These scholars date the epistle from the 80 A. D up to the end of the 250 A. D.
Source: (Raymond E Brown An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible, p. 662)
“And when Jesus was five years old, there fell a great rain upon the earth, and the boy Jesus walked up and down through it. And there was a terrible rain, and He collected it into a fish-pond, and ordered it by His word to become clear. And immediately it became so. Again He took of the clay which was of that fish-pond, and made of it to the number of twelve sparrows. And it was the Sabbath when Jesus did this among the boys of the Jews. And the boys of the Jews went away and said to Joseph His father: Behold, thy son was playing along with us, and he took clay and made sparrows, which it was not lawful to do on the Sabbath; and he has broken it. And Joseph went away to the boy Jesus, and said to Him: Why have you done this, which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath? And Jesus opened His hands, and ordered the sparrows, saying: Go up into the air and fly; nobody shall kill you. And they flew, and began to cry out, and praise God Almighty. And the Jews seeing what had happened, wondered, and went away and told the miracles which Jesus had done.”
Source: (Infancy Gospel of James Chapter 4)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
This story is very similar to the one in the ‘Infancy Gospel of Thomas’. What becomes apparent is that both of these sources are relying upon some oral tradition–one in which does not have a chain of transmission.
Now here is what is interesting about the Protoevangelion Jacobi or Infancy Gospel of James. One of the Christian polemicists that used this type of attack upon the Qur’anwas himself put in a difficult position in relation to this text.
@19:20 Erhman asks: “What other documents are found in P72 as this is a document that resonates with you?”
James responds, “There are some non-canonical documents in P72 …
Erhman replies, “Right, so I am just wondering about you resonating with this document”. Do you think that the scribe thought what he was copying was scripture?“
James, “Well, I don’t think you can simply jump to the conclusion that, because scribes included books in a single codex that they believed that everything within that codex was necessarily scripture.” There are sorts of works that were considered to be beneficial to people that were included in codices that were not necessarily canonical.”
Erhman, “Yeah, I just think that it was odd that that particular manuscript was one that you resonated with because it’s the earliest attestation that we have of the protoevangelium jacobi.” (The Infancy Gospel of James) ..
Prima Qur’an Comments:
In other words, you can’t know for certain if the scribe who was copying this text (obviously from an even earlier source) was transcribing what he thought was divine writing! Especially in light of the fact that it is in the same genre of manuscripts that are generally described as “the most significant” papyrus of the New Testament to be discovered so far.
“Now, when the Lord Jesus had completed seven years from His birth, on a certain day He was occupied with boys of His own age. For they were playing among clay, from which they were making images of asses, oxen, birds, and other animals; and each one boasting of his skill, was praising his own work. Then the Lord Jesus said to the boys: The images that I have made I will order to walk. The boys asked Him whether then he was the son of the Creator, and the Lord Jesus made them walk. And they immediately began to leap; and then, when He had given them leave, they again stood still. And He had made figures of birds and sparrows, which flew when He told them to fly, and stood still when He told them to stand, and ate and drank when He handed them food and drink. After the boys had gone away and told this to their parents, their fathers said to them: My sons, take care not to keep company with him again, for he is a wizard: flee from him, therefore, and avoid him, and do not play with him again after this.”
Source: (The Arabic Infancy Gospel of Jesus)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
This text has Jesus not only making birdsbut apparently donkeys, oxen, and other (undisclosed) animals out of clay. There is an inquiry about him being the son of the Creator. There is no mention of the sabbath or any mention of the animals being of any number.
It’s thought that this Gospel has its origins in Syriac sources in the 5th or 6th century.
“We find what follows in the book of Joseph the high priest, who lived in the time of Christ. Some say that he is Caiaphas. He has said that Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when he was lying in His cradle, said to Mary His mother: “I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom you have brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to you; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world.”
Source: (The Arabic Infancy Gospel of Jesus).
Prima Qur’an Comments:
There is no mention of Mary carrying Jesus as a baby. There is no mention of the people asking Mary where this baby came from. This text has Jesus addressing his mother, the Qur’an has him addressing the people. The text above is filled with Christian doctrine: Jesus is the Son of God, he has a ‘Father’ and he was sent for the salvation of the world.
None of this is found in the account of the Qur’an.
Conclusion:
The attacks that Christian polemicists have leveled towards the Qur’anare the kind one would expect from radical skepticism, and a worldview bereft of the supra-natural.
We can see that these sources the Christians point to have important details and radically different theological statements that we do not find at all within the Qur’an.
More telling is that Christians do not even quote these sources, or give the details of the accounts. Many of the people they speak to will not go and double-check the sources for themselves.
The fact that some Christians find these sources apocryphal is of no concern to us as Muslims. We as Muslims do not rely upon them or accept them as revelation either. Our acceptance of what is stated in the Qur’an comes from our faith in it as divine revelation and in what Allah (swt) himself has stated:
“That is from the news of the unseen which We reveal to you. And you were not with them when they cast their pens as to which of them should be responsible for Mary. Nor were you with them when they disputed.” (Qur’an 3:44)
Just as our faith in Jesus as the Messiah, the Word of Allah, and the Son of Mary are not dependent upon any book of the New Testament (even if the whole of Christendom) accepts it as canonical.
Christians themselves cannot totally rule out the possibility of Jesus having spoken as an infant or having given life to the clay birds based upon the following evidence:
“And Jesus did many other miracles in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name” (John 20:30-31).
As well as the fact that the Gospel writers themselves have admitted to leaving out particular miracles that did not suit their desired goals.
“The truth is from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.”(Qur’an 2:147)
“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.” (Qur’an 5:83)
May Allah (swt) guide the truth seekers!
If you enjoyed this article you may enjoy the following:
“We strengthened his kingship, and gave him wisdom and sound judgment.” (Qur’an 38:20)
﷽
These verses are a case study that strengthen the position of the Ibadi school that Muslims should not rely upon the Israʼiliyyat material to provide further points of elucidation on any matter of our faith.
Narrated Ubaidullah:
Ibn `Abbas said, “Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Qur’an) which has been revealed to Allah’s Messenger (saw) is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, ‘It is from Allah,’ to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!”
Because this hadith is from Ibn Abbas (ra). Ibn Abbas (ra) is clearly telling us not to rely upon the People of the Scripture while we have the Qur’an.
*Note* Ibn Abbas (ra) according to the hadith clearly states:
“Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything?“
“(And hath the story of the litigants come unto thee?) Then came to you the story of the opponents of David. (How they climbed the wall into the royal chamber…”
“How they burst in upon David, and he) David (was afraid of them. They) i.e. the two angels who entered in on David (said: Be not afraid (We are) two litigants, one of whom hath wronged the other, therefore judge aright) justly (between us; be not unjust) do not be partial and transgress not; (and show us the fair way) show us what is right.”
“(Lo! this my brother hath ninety and nine ewes) meaning 99 wives (while I had one ewe) i.e. one wife; (and he said: Entrust it to me, and he conquered me in speech) this is a similitude which they struck for David in order for him to understand what he did to Uriah.”
“((And it was said to him): O David! Lo! We have set you as a vicegerent in the earth) We appointed you a prophet king for the Children of Israel; (therefore judge aright between mankind) judge justly between people, (and follow not desire) that as you did regarding Bathseba, the wife of Uriah, who was also David’s cousin (that it beguile you from the way of Allah) from the obedience of Allah. (Lo! those who wander from the way of Allah) from the obedience of Allah (have an awful doom, forasmuch as they forgot the Day of Reckoning) because they forsake working for the Day of Reckoning.”
So now we are in a conundrum. Here are some propositions that require reflection.
The above hadith is not true because Ibn Abbas (ra) apparently is relying upon information that neither the Qur’an nor the Blessed Prophet (saw) provides.
The above hadith is true and this tafsir attributed to Ibn Abbas (ra) needs to be put under a microscope and further scrutiny.
Ibn Abbas (ra) used to believe the statement in the hadith, but later changed his opinion, thus we have the bizarre Israʼiliyyat material in his Tafsir.
The bizarre Israʼiliyyat material in Ibn Abbas (ra) tafsir is about an earlier position he held and the hadith captures a latter position in which he corrected the error of his ways.
“We strengthened his kingship, and gave him wisdom and sound judgment. Has the story of the two plaintiffs, who scaled the sanctuary, reached you? When they came into David’s presence, he was startled by them. They said, “Have no fear. We are merely two in a dispute: one of us has wronged the other. So judge between us with truth—do not go beyond it and guide us to the right way. This is my brother. He has ninety-nine sheep while I have one. He asked me to give it up to him, overwhelming me with his argument.” David’s ruling was: “He has definitely wronged you in demanding to add your sheep to his. And certainly many partners wrong each other, except those who believe and do good—but how few are they!” Then David realized that We had tested him so he asked for his Lord’s forgiveness, fell down in prostration, and turned in repentance. So We forgave that for him. And he will indeed have closeness to Us and an honourable destination! “O David! We have surely made you an authority in the land, so judge between people with truth. And do not follow whims or they will lead you astray from Allah’s Way. Surely those who go astray from Allah’s Way will suffer a severe punishment for neglecting the Day of Reckoning.” (Qur’an 38:20-26)
We will give our argument that of the questions that are put forward the position of Ibn Abbas (ra) is either position 2 or 4. The Tafsir attributed to Ibn Abbas (ra) has some bizarre assertions.
In order to believe in either proposition 1 or 3 we would need solid answers to the following questions:
A) Why would angels need to: “climb a wall into a royal chamber?” They are angels why do they need to climb or scale anything?
B) Since when did Prophets serve as a litigant in a dispute with angels?
C) Since when did angels have sheep?
D) Where did Ibn Abbas (ra) get the idea that the sheep are actually women? Why would the Arabic text, which clearly states sheep, be seen as a metaphor for women unless one was reliant upon Israʼiliyyat.
As regards what some commentators think, this is a reference to let me remind the readers of the Biblical account that accuses the Prophet.
Regarding the incident of King David and Uriah, it is alluded to in the Qur’an (38:21-25) in the Parable of the Ewes. It becomes evident that King David did commit some mistake with regard to taking Uriah’s wife. But, of course, we don’t say he committed adultery with her.
Allegedly Prophet David (as) commits adultery and is culpable in murder according to the Bible.
“Brothers, I can tell you with confidence that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.” (Acts 2:29-30)
Next, we have the story of Prophet David (as)
Apparently, if we are to believe the testimony in the Bible concerning David, we find that he was a man who led a woman to commit adultery and committed adultery himself. He lusted after another man’s wife, watched her bath naked. He then had this woman’s husband killed. He tried to hide the fact he made this woman pregnant out of wedlock. This is the same David that, according to Christians, writes all the prophecies concerning Jesus in the 22 Psalms and throughout the Psalms. Even accordingly, David wrote evil things like the following:
“In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah. In it, he wrote, “Put Uriah out in front where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die.”
If I was to measure the Prophets of the Bible-based upon how some Christians measure the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) I could never become a Christian. I would have to reject the testimony concerning the “prophecies” concerning Jesus in the Psalms.
“One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof, he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, “She is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite.” Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (Now she was purifying herself from her monthly uncleanness.)
Then she went back home. The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, “I am pregnant.” “So David sent this word to Joab: “Send me Uriah the Hittite.” And Joab sent him to David. When Uriah came to him, David asked him how Joab was, how the soldiers were, and how the war was going. Then David said to Uriah, “Go down to your house and wash your feet.” So Uriah left the palace, and a gift from the king was sent after him. But Uriah slept at the entrance to the palace with all his master’s servants and did not go down to his house.”
“David was told, “Uriah did not go home.” So he asked Uriah, “Haven’t you just come from a military campaign? Why didn’t you go home?” “Uriah said to David, “The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in tents, and my commander Joab and my lord’s men are camped in the open country. How could I go to my house to eat and drink and make love to my wife? As surely as you live, I will not do such a thing!”
“Then David said to him, “Stay here one more day, and tomorrow I will send you back.” So Uriah remained in Jerusalem that day and the next. At David’s invitation, he ate and drank with him, and David made him drunk. But in the evening Uriah went out to sleep on his mat among his master’s servants; he did not go home.”
” In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah. In it, he wrote, “Put Uriah out in front where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die.” “So while Joab had the city under siege, he put Uriah at a place where he knew the strongest defenders were. When the men of the city came out and fought against Joab, some of the men in David’s army fell; moreover, Uriah the Hittite died.”
“Joab sent David a full account of the battle. He instructed the messenger: “When you have finished giving the king this account of the battle, the king’s anger may flare up, and he may ask you, ‘Why did you get so close to the city to fight? Didn’t you know they would shoot arrows from the wall? Who killed Abimelek son of Jerub-Besheth? Didn’t a woman drop an upper millstone on him from the wall, so that he died in Thebez? Why did you get so close to the wall?’ If he asks you this, then say to him, ‘Moreover, your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead.’”
“The messenger set out, and when he arrived he told David everything Joab had sent him to say. The messenger said to David, “The men overpowered us and came out against us in the open, but we drove them back to the entrance of the city gate. Then the archers shot arrows at your servants from the wall, and some of the king’s men died. Moreover, your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead.” “David told the messenger, “Say this to Joab: ‘Don’t let this upset you; the sword devours one as well as another. Press the attack against the city and destroy it.’ Say this to encourage Joab.”
“When Uriah’s wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him. After the time of mourning was over, David had her brought to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing David had done displeased the Lord.”(2nd Samuel 11:2-27)
What does the displeased Lord do with David?
“This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes, I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’”
“Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” “Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord,the son born to you will die.” “After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.” On the seventh day, the child died.”
David’s attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, “While the child was still living, he wouldn’t listen to us when we spoke to him”. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate.” “David noticed that his attendants were whispering among themselves, and he realized the child was dead. “Is the child dead?” he asked.” “Yes,” they replied, “He is dead.”
“Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed, put on lotions, and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the Lord and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request, they served him food, and he ate.” “His attendants asked him, “Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!”
“He answered, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.” “Then David comforted his wife Bathsheba, and he went to her and made love to her. She gave birth to a son, and they named him Solomon. The Lord loved him; and because the Lord loved him, he sent word through Nathan the prophet to name him Jedidiah.” (2 Samuel 12:11-25)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
So the Lord (Jesus The Son, The Father, and that third wheel, aka- The Holy Spirit) was displeased with David’s actions. So what do they ultimately do? What do THEY DO to David?
They kill David’s infant son! Imagine David saying to his son: “Sorry, son but Daddy got into a fling with some other dudes wife and now well lil tyke you’re going to have die for that!”
They make a decree that David will have his wives taken from him and made to commit adultery in broad daylight. God of the Bible via Prophet Nathan: “What you did displeased me. You know I don’t like it when people commit adultery. To prove my point I am going to decree to have your wives go and commit adultery in broad daylight just to show you how much I dislike adultery!”
Lastly, they reward David with a son through the wife who cheated on her husband and gave her Solomon who in return became a King of Israel and a Prophet! God of the Bible via Prophet Nathan: “David what you did was very bad and even though I killed your son who did not have anything do with your sexual proprietaries but that is water under the bridge, lesson learned. Thus, I am going give you another son through the same women that cheated on her husband.”
What in the Cinnamon Toast Crunch kind of justice is this?!
Notice the above text states:
” I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives.”
Such a notable threat, but we don’t hear anything of that kind. The text says that I will take your wives and take them to one who is close to David, and he will sleep with your wives. Which begs the question. How certain can we be that this child that Bathsheba had with David was his child at all?
We have no idea how much time has passed since the death of Uriah and although the text goes out of its way to make it seem that he never had intimacy with her for some time, we can’t be entirely certain. Not only that, but apparently, according to the threats issued by the God of the Bible to David that he would take his wives and give them to someone who will commit adultery with them, how certain can we be that this individual is not the father?
Anyway, this is the depiction of the deity of the Bible and the “justice” of that deity. There is absolutely no justification to think that the passage of the (Qur’an 38:20-26) had anything to do with that, at all!
Not only this but the above text is in major contradiction with the above.
“But the children of the murderers he did not execute, according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, in which the Lord commanded, saying, “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; but a person shall be put to death for his own sin.”(2 Kings 14:6)
Note that the children of the murderers were not executed. But the above text has:
“You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord,the son born to you will die.”
Shaykh Dr. Khalan Al Kharousi (H) has an explanation for this. All praise be to Allah (swt).
Dr. Khalan Al Kharousi (h) mentions a very important point. That here and there a particular mufassir (exegete) would look at the Qur’an through the lens of the Israʼiliyyat material. Which brings us that unfortunate bit about Uriah and David. The text of the Qur’an is far, far from this.
Now that is the explanation given by Shaykh Dr. Khalan (h).
There is another explanation given by our teacher, Shaykh Dawud Bu-Sinani (h) of Algeria.
Shaykh Dawud’s explanation is very straight forward. He focuses on the following text:
So judge between us with truth—do not go beyond it and guide us to the right way.
David’s ruling was: “He has definitely wronged you in demanding to add your sheep to his.
Then David realized that We had tested him so he asked for his Lord’s forgiveness, fell down in prostration, and turned in repentance
We have surely made you an authority in the land, so judge between people with truth. And do not follow whims or they will lead you astray from Allah’s Way
So the straight forward explanation given by Shaykh Dawud Bu-Sinani of Algeria is that the hakim should hear both sides of the story. David (as) upon hearing that one brother had the bulk of the sheep, gave in to his whims and was hasty in coming to a decision. However, he immediately realized this. As if he was going to turn to the second brother and say (now you speak) but by than David (as) already showed himself not to be impartial. Thus, David (as) was quick to turn in repentance to Allah (swt).
For those of you who understand Arabic, do not miss out on this gem of the Ummah, Shaykh Dawud Bu-Sinani (h). Ustadh Nouman Ali Khan attended his lecture series in Oman.
Here is a 7 hour Qur’anic course contains seven chapters dealing with the foundations of faith and the practical rules that a Muslim should follow in order to meet his Lord with a blank page free from the traces of sins and sins!
“And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. Those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge of it, but only follow conjecture. For certainly, they did not kill him.” (Qur’an 4:157)
﷽
This is a recent e-mail sent to Todd Lawson an Emeritus Professor of Islamic thought at the University of Toronto.
I sent this inquiry as I am genuinely curious as to why he or anyone for that matter think that the Qur’an 4:157 seem to be interacting with anything that the Romans have done, or that the text is talking about a historical event known as the “Crucifixion” or that the Qur’an is denying/or affirming anything about a Cross at all.
Greetings Professor Lawson
I hope this email finds you in the best of health.
I had read your book “The Crucifixion and the Qur’an: A Study in the HIstory of Muslim Thought.”
It was certainly an interesting read.
You have noted how extraneous material has influenced the Sunni Tafsir tradition and popular interpretation of Qur’an 4:157.
So to this point I am curious as to why you think the Qur’an engaged with an historical event popularly known as “The Crucifixion” at all?
The reason I ask this is because when one looks at the immediate text of the Qur’an 4:157 there does not seem to be any mention of Romans or Roman involvement at all.
I am deeply interested why your good self or anyone would feel that the Qur’an 4:157 engages with an historical event popularly known as “The Crucifixion” at all. I believe that a reading of the text without extraneous material tells us that the text is interacting with certain Jews who were making certain claims about Jesus.
When we read Qur’an 4:155 for example:
“They have incurred Allah’s wrath for their breaking the covenant, and their rejection of the signs of Allah and for slaying Prophets without right, and for saying: ‘Our hearts are wrapped up in covers-even though in fact Allah has sealed their hearts because of their unbelief, so that they scarcely believe.”
I believe we both concur that it would seem out of place for that text to address the Romans of the time of Jesus.
Furthermore the Qur’an 4:157 has a double denial in the text. They did not kill him nor did they (salabu). The initial denial is general and it can easily accommodate any understanding of a possible demise of Jesus.
It is immensely curious to follow up a general denial that can accommodate any particular understanding of any possible demise of Jesus with a particular denial immediately after.
Is it not more sensible in keeping with the immediate text and surrounding text to see this as the Qur’an interacting with particular claims made by Jews about Jesus? Rather these claims are based upon any historical event, document or even oral transmissions in certain circles that the Qur’an would be familiar with?
Given that this seems to be the very obvious case, how do you propose somehow Romans, and a “Crucifixion” is posited upon the text of Qur’an 4:157?
It is peculiar because Jews do not crucify people in their law. It is not a part of the Torah nor of the Talmud of which I am sure you are aware.
They do have laws about killing people and then impailing them. They do have assertions about those impaled being cursed by God.
Equally curious is the idea that (salabu) would translate to a Latin Cross, or the Tau Cross.
Given that the Qur’an in (7:124); 20:71; & 26:49) all describe cutting off the hands and the feet and given what we know about supporting the body weight on an ecclesiastical “Cross” it is it not presumptuous of us to assume Latin Cross, Tau etc?
The two noun forms in Qur’an 86:7 & Qur’an 4:23 which relate to the loins and the lumbus region seem to forcefully argue with a type of punishment that would involve impalement rather than anything to do with being tied to a patibulum and affixed to a crux or stake and than having nails driven in ones hands and feet.
When we look at the text of Qur’an 5:33 on page 31 of your book you state:
“the criminal was killed by a separate means before their corpse was publicly displayed on a pike or cross.”
This does not seem to correlate to what Christians have in mind when they invoke the “Crucifixion” of Jesus. They seem to think this is a death on a cross and not a death prior to a cross.
I also felt that pike was more appropriate than cross given what we know about the Islamic legal schools. None of the legal schools, Ibadi, Zaydi, Zahiri, Shafi’i, Imami, Maliki, Hanafi or Hanbali make it a requirement to put someone on a patibulum and affix that patibulum to a crux or stake and than proceed to drive nails in the hands and feet.
Much more can be said. Again I believe my initial inquiry is that if we do a plain reading of Qur’an 4:157 or even invoke the immediate context where are we drawing upon the idea that this is interacting with something the Romans are said to have done to Jesus?
Thank you for your time.
Have a blessed weekend ahead.
If you would like to read more on this subject I invite you to read the following:
“There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
﷽
You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.” (Exodus 20:4)
So rather than making an image of God, the command goes far beyond that. Christians should not make idols of anything.
“You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.” (Deuteronomy 5:8)
The irony is that this text has been a source of controversy among Christians as if God did not provide clarity for them. So they say, well God says do not make an idol. So their argument goes like this: “We can make the likeness of living created beings, but we just cannot worship them, and thus they are not idols.”
From left to right: Credit to Mart Production and Varan Nm. All photos taken from pexels.com
When it comes to the Bible, both the TNCH and the New Testament are replete with Anthropomorphic descriptions of God.
This is by no means an exhaustive list.
God rides upon a cherubim (usually depicted in art as a naked baby angel)
“He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind.” (Psalm 18:10)
God’s thigh and his self promotional tattoo?!
“On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: king of kings and lord of lords.” (Revelation 19:16)
How anyone writes created words on the uncreated God merits pensive reflection.
Not only this but usually human females get tattoos in provocative places to draw attention to their assets.
Who has time to focus on a thigh tattoo when there are flashing dazzling lights shooting out from the groin area!
The God of the Bible has loins.
“”And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about.” (Ezekiel 1:27)
God’s feet?
“And saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky.” (Exodus 24:10)
The nostrils of God?
“Smoke went up from his nostrils..” (Psalms 18:8)
God has one ear (not more).
“Give EAR, our God, and hear; open your eyes and see the desolation of the city that bears your Name.” (Daniel 9:18) An Ear, not ears..
Or God has ears (plural)
“In my distress I called to the LORD; I called out to my God. From his temple he heard my voice; my cry came to his ears.” (2 Samuel 22:7)
The God of the Bible has a shadow.
“He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High Will abide in the shadow of the Almighty.” (Psalm 91:1)
How a God that is supposed to be light has a shadow is certainly a mystery!
The God of the Bible whistles?
“At that time the Lord will whistle for the Egyptians.” (Isaiah 7:18)
The God of the Bible gets jealous?
“For I the Lord your God am a jealous God.” (Daniel 5:9)
The God of the Bible smears poo poo (dung) on people’s faces.
“Because of you I will rebuke your descendants; I will smear on your faces the dung from your festival sacrifices, and you will be carried off with it.” (Malachi 2:3)
The God of the Bible emits a sound and walks.
“Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden.” (Genesis 3:8)
The God of the Bible breaths.
“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.” (Genesis 2:7)
God has thoughts and people have thoughts.
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8)
So do we deny that God has thoughts because people have thoughts or are his thoughts not like our thoughts?
Do we affirm without asking how or is the how known?
The backside of God?!!
“And I will take away mine hand, and you shall see my backside: but my face shall not be seen.” (Exodus 33:23)
God only needs one digit (a single finger to write)
“And when He (God) had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.” (Exodus 31:18)
God has an unknowable number of fingers.
“When I consider you heavens, the work of your fingers, The moon and the stars, which you have ordained.” (Psalm 8:3)
The God of the Bible has hands (plural).
“The sea is his, for he made it, and his hands formed the dry land.” (Psalm 95:5)
“So I reflected on all this and concluded that the righteous and the wise and what they do are in God’s hands, but no one knows whether love or hate awaits them.” (Ecclesiastes 9:1 )
The God of the Bible has a right hand and Jesus is sitting next to it.
“He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” (Hebrews 1:3)
The God of the Bible has a right hand and Jesus is standing next to it.
“But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:55-56)
*NOTE* NO WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY GOD HAS A LEFT HAND!
Now obviously, I do not follow Salafiyya/Athari creed. However, those Christians who think they have landed some points against them have erred tremendously.
All that Daniel Haqiqatjou, Mohamed Hijab, Uthman Ibn Faruq, The Muslim Lantern (Chainless Slave) Muhammed Ali, Jake The Muslim Metaphysician, Farid Al Bahraini, or Bassam Zawadi-all that they have to do is ask the following to the Christians.
Does the Bible assert hands for God? Answer: Yes.
Does the Bible assert a right hand for God? Answer: Yes.
Does the Bible assert a left hand for God? Answer: No.
If the Bible does not assert a left hand for God how can you NOT assert that both his hands are right?
Game over! Those Christians would be cooked.
For the Bible says:
“Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.” (Proverbs 3:5)
God of the Bible finds the aroma of charred dead animal flesh soothing and sweet.
The God of the Bible smells (Not what the Rock is cooking but still…)
“Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and took of every clean animal, and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the Lord smelled a soothing aroma.” (Genesis 8:20-21)
Other translations say: ‘a sweet savour’. “And the Lord smelled a sweet savour”.
God of the Bible repents from his own evil.
“And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.” (Exodus 32:14)
Like this God was thinking of doing something so nasty and cruel to humans and than thought , “Naah that’s a bit too much!”
God of the Bible regrets that he creates his own creation.
“The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.” (Genesis 6:6)
God of the Bible can cancel out his own knowledge.
“For I will be merciful to their iniquities, And I will remember their sins no more.” (Hebrews 8:12)
The God of the Bible has wings and feathers.
“He shall cover you with Hisfeathers, and under His wings you will trust” (Psalm 91:4).
The God of the Bible mounts, swoops and spreads out his wings.
“Behold, He will mount up and swoop like an eagle and spread out His wings against Bozrah; and the hearts of the mighty men of Edom in that day will be like the heart of a woman in labor.” (Jeremiah 49:22)
God of the Bible sends delusions on people so they believe what is false.
“For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false.” (2 Thessalonians 2:11)
The God of the Bible shaves people’s head, legs, and removes the beard.
“In that day the Lord will shave with a razor, hired from regions beyond the Euphrates (that is, with the king of Assyria), the head and the hair of the legs; and it will also remove the beard.” (Isaiah 7:20)
Some Christian commentators make matters worse by saying this is a full hair removal; for total purity as mentioned in the following text:
“The one to be cleansed shall then wash his clothes and shave off all his hair and bathe in water and be clean. Now afterward, he may enter the camp, but he shall stay outside his tent for seven days.” (Leviticus 14:8)
Thus, and we seek refuge in Allah, the Bible is claiming that God will shave all the hair off (pubic hair, you name it!)
The Bible says God is a man of war.
“The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.” (Exodus 15:3)
The God of the Bible sends an evil spirit upon Saul.
“And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul’s hand. ” (1 Samuel 18:10)
The biggest incident of Saul disobeying God in the Bible is because he did not completely genocide everything and he spared some animals.
Which according to the Bible, God inspires Samuel to inform Saul is just as bad as worshipping idols! So this evil spirit that comes from God comes upon Saul and Saul is agitated knowing that God is going to supplant him with David.
Christians claim that God does not want people to be gay. However; this evil spirit inspires Saul to tell David to collect 100 penis skins for him! Does it get more gay?!
By the way think about this narrative. Do you really think that David went around and methodically cut a perfect circle around every man’s Penis and collected a bunch of foreskins in a bag? No! It means he cut off 200 penises put them in some bags and threw them down in the kings court like ‘Yo! Here’s the Penis skins you wanted!’ -which by the way the evil spirit the Bible God sent to Saul inspired him to tell David to do! Does it get more gay than this?!
Speaking of Gay. Unicorns and Rainbows Oh my!
The God of the Bible has strength comparable to a unicorn.
“God brought them out of Egypt; he has as it were the strength of an unicorn.” (Numbers 23:22)
The God of the Bible relies upon a rainbow in order to remember.
“Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.” (Genesis 9:14-15)
God of the Bible feels sorry that the man he appointed to kill babies saved some animals.
Read the following from (1 Samuel 15:3-26)
One day, Samuel told Saul:
The Lord told me to choose you to be king of his people, Israel. Now listen to this message from the Lord: “When the Israelites were on their way out of Egypt, the nation of Amalek attacked them. I am the Lord All-Powerful, and now I am going to make Amalek pay! “Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their possessions. Don’t have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and even their babies. Slaughter their cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys.” Saul sent messengers who told every town and village to send men to join the army at Telaim. There were 210,000 troops in all, and 10,000 of these were from Judah. Saul organized them,then led them to a valley near one of the towns in Amalek, where they got ready to make a surprise attack. Some Kenites lived nearby, and Saul told them, “Your people were kind to our nation when we left Egypt, and I don’t want you to get killed when I wipe out the Amalekites. So stay away from them.” The Kenites left,and Saul attacked the Amalekites from Havilah to Shur, which is just east of Egypt. Every Amalekite was killed except King Agag.Saul and his army let Agag live, and they also spared the best sheep and cattle. They didn’t want to destroy anything of value, so they only killed the animals that were worthless or weak. The Lord told Samuel, “Saul has stopped obeying me, and I’m sorry that I made him king.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out in prayer to the Lord all night. Early the next morning he went to talk with Saul. Someone told him, “Saul went to Carmel, where he had a monument built so everyone would remember his victory. Then he left for Gilgal.” Samuel finally caught up with Saul, and Saul told him, “I hope the Lord will bless you! I have done what the Lord told me.” “Then why,” Samuel asked, “do I hear sheep and cattle?”“The army took them from the Amalekites,” Saul explained. “They kept the best sheep and cattle, so they could sacrifice them to the Lord your God. But we destroyed everything else.” “Stop!” Samuel said. “Let me tell you what the Lord told me last night.” “All right,” Saul answered. Samuel continued, “You may not think you’re very important, but the Lord chose you to be king, and you are in charge of the tribes of Israel. When the Lord sent you on this mission, he told you to wipe out those worthless Amalekites. Why didn’t you listen to the Lord? Why did you keep the animals and make him angry?” “But I did listen to the Lord!” Saul answered. “He sent me on a mission, and I went. I captured King Agag and destroyed his nation. All the animals were going to be destroyed anyway. That’s why the army brought the best sheep and cattle to Gilgal as sacrifices to the Lord your God.” “Tell me,” Samuel said. “Does the Lord really want sacrifices and offerings? No! He doesn’t want your sacrifices. He wants you to obey him. Rebelling against God or disobeying him because you are proud is just as bad as worshiping idols or asking them for advice. You refused to do what God told you, so God has decided that you can no longer be king.”“I have sinned,” Saul admitted. “I disobeyed both you and the Lord. I was afraid of the army, and I listened to them instead. Please forgive me and come back with me so I can worship the Lord.” “No!” Samuel replied, “You disobeyed the Lord, and I won’t go back with you. Now the Lord has said that you can’t be king of Israel any longer.”
God of the Bible is the creator of evil.
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7)
The God of the Bible hates.
“”I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob ‘s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.” (Malachi 1:2-3)
(So the God of the Bible is a God of Love and Hate)
(A God of Love, that Hates or A God of Hate that Loves)
The God of the Bible jeers and pokes fun at his creation.
“He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision.” (Psalm 2:4)
The God of the Bible laughs.
“but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming.” (Psalm 37:13)
The God of the Bible rages. (Maybe not Rage Against The Machine, but …..)
“The LORD is a jealous and vengeful God; the LORD is vengeful and strong in wrath. The LORD is vengeful against his foes; he rages against his enemies.” (Nahum 1:2)
The God of the Bible has a mouth.
“Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)
The God of the Bible is meticulous in how his food should be prepared.
“Command the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘You shall be careful to present My offering, My food for My offerings by fire, of a soothing aroma to Me, at their appointed time.” (Numbers 28:2)
The God of the Bible has knowledge which is impeded by distance.
“But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the people were building.” (Genesis 11:5)
The God of the Bible is affected by a certain type of wine which cheers him up.
“And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheers up God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?” (Judges 9:13)
The God of the Bible did not stop Jephthah from burning his small daughter if God gave him victory over his enemies.
“Then the Spirit of the Lord came on Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands. He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon. When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.” “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.” “You may go,” He said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin. (Judges 11:29-39)
Prima Qur’an Comments: Now there is major major copium from Christians and Jews regarding this.
Copium # 1. They try and put a spin that the sacrifice is to dedicate his daughter to the Lord as a virgin (meaning temple service) and Jephthah bemoaned that due this he would never have any descendants.
Response: and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering & After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed The emphasis on her being a virgin is so she would be an unblemished sacrificed.
2. Copium #2. God commands against sacrificing Children in the Bible.
Response. No, no he doesn’t!
“You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 18:21)
“I will also set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given some of his offspring to Molech, so as to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name.” (Leviticus 20:3)
“You shall not behave thus toward the Lord your God, for every abominable act which the Lord hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.” (Deuteronomy 12:31)
As well as the related practice of passing the children through the fire and not consuming them by the fire:
“There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer.” (Deuteronomy 18:10)
“You shall also say to the sons of Israel: ‘Any man from the sons of Israel or from the aliens sojourning in Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones.” (Leviticus 20:2)
Offering your children up as a burnt offering is not against the Torah teachings of the Jews. Nor was it something unacceptable to God. The offence in question was offering them up to Molech and NOT THE GOD OF ISRAEL!
“For I the Lord your God am a jealous God.” (Daniel 5:9)
There is no issue with offering up children as a holocaust (burnt offering) to God. The issue is doing it to false Gods. Because the God of the Bible is jealous.
Did we forget?
“After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” (Genesis 22:1-2)
The Bible likens God to a groomer that watches a baby grow up develop breast, “body hair” waiting until she was mature enough for “love” and marry her.
“And I helped you to thrive like a plant in the field. You grew up and became a beautiful jewel. Your breasts became full, and your body hair grew, but you were still naked. And when I passed by again, I saw that you were old enough for love. So I wrapped my cloak around you to cover your nakedness and declared my marriage vows. I made a covenant with you, says the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine.” (Ezekiel 16:7-8)
This passage is basically stating that God married “Israel” and it likens God to a man marrying a very young girl. Notice that no one officiates God’s marriage of course. It is just that God wraps his cloak around her and….”Surprise! You’re my wife!”
However, latter we find out that God gets cheated on. That the ‘wife’ of God became like a prostitute.
“‘But you trusted in your beauty and capitalized on your fame by becoming a prostitute. You offered your sexual favors to every man who passed by so that your beauty became his. You took some of your clothing and made for yourself decorated high places; you engaged in prostitution on them.” (Ezekiel 16:15-16)
Prima Qur’an: I always wondered why many Christian and Jewish men had a very unhealthy relationship and attitude towards women. When The Creator of Heaven and Earth gets cheated on then who is the average man compared to God?
Even some Christian polemist who got cheated on may feel a kindred spirit with God.
Many Christians who were sexually violated as youth have read the above passages with a great deal of discomfort. May Allah (swt) guide them and console them.
Granted we as Muslims are understanding concerning metaphor, allegories and rhetorical devices in literature. The Qur’an itself deploys metaphor, allegory and an array of rhetorical and literary devices.
Yet, some of these passages and text in the Bible are quite concerning.
May Allah (swt) guide the Jews and Christians to the truth.
“They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it.”(Qur’an 61:8)
﷽
When it comes to Christians and Islam there are a few scenarios that take place.
a) Either they begin a serious study of Islam and end up seeing that Islam is a more cogent faith and world view than Christianity ever could be. They convert to Islam as I have.
b) They remain convinced of their own faith but develop a deep admiration and appreciation for Islam and Muslims (rather they admit it publicly or not)
c) Their hearts become diseased and their spiritual ailments are amplified and this becomes obvious in time. Greed, avarice, lust, anger, hate, racism begins to drip from their writings and public statements. Without fail repeatedly these people end up being humiliated publicly in this life. The hereafter is a painful and everlasting torment for them.
This article will focus on group C. Where better to start than with Zionist Evangelist Phil Arms and Phil Arms ministries? These are just some of the books that are Anti Islam and filled with pro-Israel Platitudes.
Is Fanatic Islam a Global Threat? by Phil Arms
Light in the Shadow of Jihad by Phil Arms
Unholy War-America, Israel and Radical Islam by Phil Arms
However, what we do not know is this, just like Robert Morey who was removed from his Church and asked to leave F.I.R.E (an Evangelical Christian Outreach) Phil Arms too was removed from his church! The full story follows. I am sure that sooner or later sincere Christians are going to get real tired of these Evangelist, and Pastors and Apologist who claim to be fighting ‘the good fight’ against Islam but instead are busy embezzling funds, and robbing the congregation of their hard-earned money, and molesting members of the body of Christ both physically and spiritually!
“Phil Arms grew up in West Texas. His dynamic Christian mother raised her six children in the local church. However, Phil did not commit his life to Christ during his younger years and chose to join himself with the sub-culture of the sixties and seventies in Houston, Texas. After experiencing one dead end after another, running from the love and voice of God, he began to search for reality and gave his life to Christ on a street corner in 1972. Immediately after his conversion, he began a ministry on the streets of Houston, Texas, witnessing to those in need of Jesus. Within a short time, God began to open wide the doors for Phil to minister in churches, schools, and evangelistic rallies.” Source: http://www.lifereachministries.com/aboutus.aspx
The interesting part above is that it says that Pastor Phil “chose to join himself with the sub-culture of the sixties and seventies in Houston, Texas.” Anyone who knows about the 60s and 70s knows that the sub-culture referred to at that time was one of drugs, drugs and you guessed it more drugs…
No amount of lawyering could have placated Jim Miller, who rose from his seat in the crowd and said, “I will not stand for more lies.” Taken aback, Arms threatened to have the dissenter removed. In a passively resistant protest, Miller threw himself on the green-carpeted steps below the pastor and prayed for him to repent. When Arms had finished his speech, he crawled down onto the steps with Miller and spoke to him harshly under his breath, like a parent scolding a child in public. “Now, God’s told me to wash your feet,” Arms said. “I want you to get up here right now.”
But the forced foot-washing did little to bring Miller back into the fold. From the altar, he pointed out that Arm’s repayment of the money didn’t negate the fact that he stole it, and this sparked shouts for truth and repentance throughout the congregation. Finally, Suzanne Arms took the stage to try to help her husband defend himself, but she ended up just giving the crowd more of the blood they wanted. “Yes, he took too many drugs, he’s confessed that,” she said. “Yes, he took the money, and he shouldn’t have — it was drug-driven.”
Apparently, he has been wrestling with the drug hydrocodone. The following picture is taken from one of his publications, “The Man Who Would Be God.”
If you take a hard look at the picture it makes you wonder what goes through the minds of people who conjure up such images. In fact, the image looks like one person who is two different beings, a split personality, or someone who maybe wrestling with something (drugs) or someone (Jinn or evil spirits). Personally looking at it gives me the creeps, and I do not know why Christians are not spiritually guided as not to have books with such images in reach of their children. The book itself, though a polemic against the Anti-Christ, does an excellent job of subliminally projecting satanic imagery. Also, it says “PHIL ARMS” underneath. For those with a discerning spirit if you get chills I think its time you pick up the Qur’an and stop listening to the lies spread by Satan’s minions. If I wrote a book I would put ‘By Phil Arms’. Why would you have such a controversial image and then just put your name at the bottom? Is Allah trying to tell us something?
In Conclusion: We as Muslims should make du’a and pray that Allah guides Phil Arms, his ministries, and those duped by his drug charades and lies so that they can understand the truth and simplicity of Islam. I invite everyone who ever listened to Phil Arms ministries to take the time to rethink some of the statements he may have made about Islam while under the influence of narcotics. Repeatedly we see those who direct their energies against Islam are exposed for their nefarious agendas and inwardly shallow spirits groping in darkness and being used as pawns of Satan. May Allah guide him and his family to Islam and may Allah give him a job that provides him with sustenance and makes things easy upon him. Next up is Assemblies of God’s very own Jimmy Swaggart.
Reverend Jimmy Swaggart (Assemblies of God) World famous televangelist and firebrand preacher will always be remembered by the world for his fiasco with the prostitute(s) in Louisiana. Jimmy Swaggart preached what he thought to be the Gospel of Christ Jesus to over 132 countries around the world! This all changed one fateful evening when his fall from grace came.
The interesting thing surrounding this event from the Muslim perspective is his well-known debate with Shaykh Ahmed Deedat.
In the debate “Is the Bible God’s Word” the two titans of Christianity and Islam, the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart and Shaykh Ahmed Deedat had finally met.
The background of the debate seems to have ignited after Jimmy Swaggart appeared on television claiming the Qur’an to be “incantations of frail men”. The Muslims of course did not take too kindly to the statement and thought that a debate between Reverend Jimmy Swaggart and Shaykh Ahmed Deedat should be arranged.
During the opening of the debate Reverend Jimmy Swaggart made an interesting remark on polygyny to the effect that he said:
“I was just talking to Mr. Deedat this afternoon I should say this evening really, and he’s one of the gentlemen whom you meet and you like him instantly. He was teasing my wife and I and said Islam allows four wives. He just corrected me he said, ‘up to four’ and I said, “Well Christianity only allows one so I had to get the best on the first shot”.
The link to the debate: “Is the Bible God’s Word” is as follows…
My review of the debate: I thought that Reverend Jimmy Swaggart was able to maintain his composure in the debate which was quite important. The most glowing comment as a true follower of Christ Jesus was his statement, “I want to say that every true Christian loves the Muslim people and I mean that with all of my heart.” His reference to a person crying out in the name of Muhammed for a demon to come out of a possessed individual Is a questionable assertion. I thought Shaykh Ahmed Deedat did an excellent job of dealing with the issue of miracles and just how important they are.
What happened subsequently after the debate will soon not be forgotten. Reverend Jimmy Swaggart was caught being defiled with prostitutes.
The link to Reverend Jimmy Swaggart’s confession of being with prostitutes is as follows…
Now, this is very interesting because of his attack on Islam’s position of polygyny. Now it would be very awkward for me as a man to say that a man should marry another woman simply to gratify his sexual desires; however why a man chooses to take a second wife is not my concern. Muslims simply point out that time and again we get attacked for polygyny while many people practice polygamy and polyandry in the form of sexual freedom with no strings attached.
Islam is simply saying to the Christians and Jews nowhere does the Bible stipulate not to have more than one wife. It is simply a modern norm that has been adopted by most Christians. Jesus, John, and Paul were never married so they cannot be examples of monogamy.
Reverend Jimmy Swaggart’s plea to ‘ship the Muslims back home’.
The Reverend Jimmy Swaggart made the recent outburst that every single Muslim in the United States college campuses should be shipped back to where they came from. Source: (https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Beliefs/story?id=130008&page=1)
This outburst is very disheartening on two accounts.
1) If every Muslim is shipped back to where they came from, what would happen to the Muslims who are born right here in America? So I am not sure his statement was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
2) Why would we want to ship Muslims back to countries that deny the Gospel of Christ Jesus? Why not keep them right here in America where they can still be reached through the Campus Crusade for Christ? This also makes me hesitant to believe the statement was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
In Conclusion: I think Muslims and people of all faith persuasions should take a step back and examine this debate and what happened before the debate and subsequently. We pray that the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart, whom otherwise a cordial man, may reconsider his comments that all Muslim students should be made to leave the United States. We also pray that Allah opens his heart to the truths and beauty of Islam.
Next up is Ted Haggard. He was the head of the 30 million-strong National Association of Evangelicals. In the end, he was a man who struggled with his Gay Sex and Methamphetamines.
Somehow, this doesn’t surprise me coming from Ted Haggard who was the former head of the 30 million-strong National Association of Evangelicals. The following article taking from a website that also supports Pat Robertson (the peaceful Christian who says we should kill Hector Chavez, president of Venezuela, is a shareholder of Coors Beer, and has shady ties to blood diamond mines in Africa). This man Ted Haggard was also a spiritual adviser to George Bush Jr. if that says anything! He was in the popular DVD the Jesus Camp video and in this video, he was bashing homosexuals.
However, as one will see after this short article of his attacking Islam, Ted Haggard had to step down from the National Association of Evangelicals for being caught doing Homosexual acts with another man and for his abuse of Methamphetamine.
I appreciate that he did some research on the issue of abrogation but it’s still skewed. In the end
Any way a sample of his anti-Islamic diatribe is as follow
The first picture is very telling. Imagine Muslims engrossed in prayer and some Christian says this to his son, “They’re praying to their moon god son.” He obviously must be saying that so loud as in the cartoon the one Muslim hears him and abruptly stops his prayer. So what Robert Morey is doing here is saying that Christians should come across as people who have no class. I can’t imagine a Muslim witnessing a Christian in prayer and saying to his son, “They are worshiping their FALSE GOD CHRIST.” So loud as to hope the worshipers would hear him. That would be absolutely tactless.
The Rise and Fall of Robert Morey: It’s O.K To Tell Lies!
Probably one of the best places to start with Dr. Robert Morey would be his view on truth.
Five Point Calvinist and “Saint of God” Robert Morey (who was on the run from legal prosecution in California) and was rumored to be trying to mount some kind of come-back in the Pennsylvania area made a living off the good people of America by peddling lies to the unwary masses about Islam.
Robert Morey (One of God’s Elect in Reformed Theology) made a claim to fame with his bizarre and now-debunked claim ‘Allah is the Moon-God’ theory.
Listen to what God’s Elect has to say…
“Well that’s the whole point is that the word, ‘Lie’ needs to be defined. Uh sometimes not telling the truth, all of the truth is your Moral Obligation. And you have a moral obligation to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth at all times to anyone who asks you. You would say, ‘That’s not in the Bible’. The moral thing to do is for me not to tell you. You ain’t getting nothing out of me. Those issues relating to rather you have a moral obligation to tell the whole truth at all times to everyone. That needs to be answered by pointing out you don’t. You do not owe them the truth. See that’s another fallacy. People run around thinking ‘life is just’ and they run around thinking you owe the truth to everyone. You don’t! That’s what the Bible teaches.”-Robert Morey.
Think about that! Oh and did Robert Morey not only stretch the truth he outright lied again, and again and again.
Reformed Christians believe that God is a deceiver and that God in his sovereignty can lie to you. They believe you can be given an evanescent grace (in which you may think you are saved but in actuality, you are not). More on that in future post-Allah-willing.
In this debate with Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al Mansour, Morey makes the outlandish claim that Muslims killed 100 million Armenians! Then he changes the number and says it has been going on ‘since the 1st century’! The Muslims of the Prophet Muhammed (saw) was not even around during the 1st century! Then he made some claim about variant readings and Dr. Abdullah challenged him to produce a single one, his best one. Dr. Morey was so embarrassed by this debate he didn’t want it to be published or circulated at all!
Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al Mansour.
Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al-Mansour is an internationally esteemed attorney, author, and lecturer whose views have garnered worldwide attention; and serves as a special advisor to HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud of Saudi Arabia.
Dr. Al-Mansour is an International Attorney and Businessman. His college education was obtained at Howard University, where he majored in Philosophy and Logic, and at the University of California School of Law at Berkeley where he received his Doctor of Jurisprudence degree. His web site is at the following address: http://www.world-hi.com/AAPressHome.html
Dr. Robert Morey also declined to debate Muslim apologist Hamza Abdul Malik on the issue: “Is Allah the true God?”. Morey and his camp declined that offer. Dr. Morey claimed to have a doctorate in “Islamic Studies” but neither he nor anyone else could find out where it came from.
Robert Morey also claims a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies from Louisiana Baptist University (LBU). This is an unaccredited institution that is not recognized by the U.S. Department of Education or by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). LBU is a “distance learning program” (teaching via the internet), with one alumnus boasting that “the LBU program may be completed 100% via distance learning” while noting that “I did spend one week on campus”. In other words, the Ph.D. is “earned” over the internet, not the classroom.
LBU is listed in Steve Levicoff’s Name It and Frame It?: New Opportunities in Adult Education and How to Avoid Being Ripped Off by “Christian” Degree Mills as a “degree mill”, a term used to refer to groups that issue bogus degrees for a fee. Outside his book, Levicoff put it bluntly: “LBU is a joke.” Perhaps LBU’s website words it best: “LBU has both the experience and reliability to provide an efficient quality degree program tailored to your needs.” Indeed! This is a case of “PhD-for-a-fee or your money back.”
In 1998, the Louisiana Board of Regents (a government agency responsible for overseeing higher education) issued a unanimous ruling to deny LBU an operating license for its business education programs and ordered the school to cease admitting students and cease advertising. LBU was later exempted based on the religious institution exemption and was allowed to operate as a religious institution.
Once again, things go from bad to worse for Morey when the matter is investigated further. Morey claims on his bio that he has obtained a Ph.D. degree in “Islamic Studies”. The only problem? LBU does not offer any such degree. As the OC Weekly noted:
Morey also claims to have received a doctorate from Louisiana Baptist University. Two problems: LBU is unaccredited by the United States government, which means no serious academy would recognize it. Then there’s this: LBU doesn’t offer a Ph.D. in Islamic studies.
He says this “research” was done at the Library of Congress where he read every book they had available on Islam written in English. He fails to tell anyone how many books are available at the Library of Congress on Islam at the time of his “research” (documentation reveals there were close to 2000 books available yet Morey’s small book only lists 130 references in the bibliography, with many of these coming from standard reference works – including nonstandard reference works like the American Tract Society). Robert Morey also made the outrageous claim that he could read 20 to 25 books an hour!
Another Christian evangelist had to call out Dr. Robert Morey for not double-checking his reference and worse still not admitting to error when shown he was wrong. You can watch that here: Robert Morey
Robert Morey was thrown out by his own denomination.
Robert Morey, instead of spending time teaching and sharing the Gospel of Christ Jesus, was getting himself rich off his own congregation. It is regrettable that Christians continue to trust such men who claim to be protecting them from their so-called “enemies”. As the old saying goes: “Who will police the police?”
To give people a typical example of something that Morey’s people would be doing is the following:
“The Research and Education Foundation has done more groundbreaking research, written more materials, produced more tapes, and debated more Muslims than any other organization of its kind… …and now they’re asking for YOUR help in the FIGHT AGAINST RADICAL ISLAM! Dr. Morey needs to raise $1,212,000 to mount a NATIONAL CRUSADE to educate the public about radical Islam and its JIHAD against the American people. The REF needs to supply education books and audio & videotapes to be used on university campuses and in the Federal and State prison system, to launch a massive challenge to the elements of radical Islam in America:….”
Robert Morey is also the same person who advised the U.S government to ‘bomb Mecca and Madinah’. So much for Christian love!
So here good Christian people across America were paying good money to make sure that ‘America was safe from radical Islam’. But then came the questions…
Where are all these videos of him debating Shabir Ally, Jamal Badawi, and Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al Mansour? Where can we find the complete list? Why have the so-called honest Calvinist Christians hid the videos of him ‘exposing the Qur’an and Islam for the lies that they are?’
How come Morey’s own church was being neglected financially?
Where did Morey actually get his self-proclaimed academic credentials in Islam?
The above people link has people asking where did some of this money raised to fight ‘radical Islam’ go to anyway?
Ironically Larry Wessels wasn’t getting his cut of the “bash Islam get paid” type of money. So there was a falling out between Larry Wessels of www.muslimhope.com and Robert Morey. The man in the videos above exposing Robert Morey is either Larry Wessels or closely associated with Larry Wessels. It is ironic because these people are also closely associated with individuals that have dubious knowledge about Islam as well as fake “Ex-Muslim” converts. Will come to that shortly insh’Allah.
That is proof that Reformed Christian theology beliefs include that the elect can backslide into grievous sins, and can for a time continue in that respect, have hardened hearts and scandalize others. Again, that is their version of a real Christian.
Conclusions: We Muslims should pray for the Christians of Robert Morey’s former church. My sincere advice to them is this. If Robert Morey has been dishonest to you and to others about your finances and Anti-Christ like in his mannerisms and treatment towards you then you should also realize that it is highly likely that he was misleading you about Islam as well. Robert Morey has to be the most dishonest Christian to come from camp “TULIP”.
T= Totally depraved U=Utterly helpless in the face of real scholarship L=Limited knowledge of the facts I=Irresistible temptation to lie P=Poorly trained academia
Robert Morey has since died. Now he will stand before a Sovereign and Just God, May Allah have mercy on your soul Robert Morey! Next is Dr. Anis Shorrosh
Dr. Anis Shorrosh was perhaps the one the Christian evangelist had been waiting for. He was Arab (or so he claims) and he was born and raised as a Christian in Palestine (or so he claims).
There are some anomalies about Shorrosh. First, of all, his name is not an Arab name. It appears to be Persian actually. Possibly he is a descendant of Armenians or Persians who settled in Palestine. Secondly, for someone born in Nazareth (as he claims), as an Arab by birth (yet in his debate with Dr. Jamal Badawi) he struggled to recite the Qur’an properly and the manner of his speaking Arabic is not as a native-born person but someone who had learned the language much latter. Especially if he was born in 1933 and served as a Pastor and an Evangelist from 1959-1966 that would put him at age 33 before he left the Middle East. Certainly, he should have a strong command of the Arabic language.
For example, you can see Anis Shorrosh struggle to read a few simple lines of the Qur’an in Arabic here:
The brother made an excellent point. In this debate between Anis Shorrosh and Jamal Badawi, Shorrosh claimed that there were mistakes in the Arabic grammar of the Qur’an. He claimed that certain words should have been other words instead. So this is quite a tall order. Yet Shorrosh claims he is not a scholar of the Arabic language! So the speaker asked Shorrosh to read a few lines of the Qur’an in Arabic of which Jamal Badawi noted were no less than 4 big mistakes let alone his struggle to even read the text!
Shorrosh also uses bait and switch tactics during debates. Observe his trickery here.
That ended up costing him the debate with Shabir Ally, which Dr. Shabir exposed him for it. Shorrosh is part of a deceptive evangelical missionary project that is called “The True Furqan” or also known as “The 21st Century Qur’an”. It has been distributed in places like Kuwait in private English schools. It contains 77 surahs which include Al Fatiha, “Al Jana” and “Al Injeel” Instead of the standard Bismillah it is replaced with a longer version that incorporates the Christian belief of three spirits. (Shabir Ally exposes this and also teaches Dr. Shorrosh that he actually ends up promoting Sabellianism! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19a30uFvghI)
The 21st Century Quran opposes Islamic teachings by stating that having more than one wife is fornication (A teaching not even found in the Bible!), that divorce is not being permissible (poor Christians stuck in abusive marriages). This book is being targeted to children in English schools were often many upper-middle-class Muslim families send their children. Lastly, after all the deceit and bluster from Anis Shorrosh what sticks out most in our minds is his arrest for burning tax records and in the process almost setting his building on fire.
Now Christians were embarrassed by this and tried to say Shorrosh acted erratically after having a stroke and a heart attack and put a medication known as statins. Yet, this apologetic response meant to save face for one of their own doesn’t account for why Shorrosh tampered with security cameras and why of all the things he burned, he burned 20 years of tax returns. Sounds like his cognitive skills were working just fine to me.
Shorrosh has since died. May Allah (swt) have mercy on your soul!
One thing that Shorrosh certainly did was to tickle the minds and the dark hearts of many Evangelical Christians involved in polemics against Islam and Muslims. This can be seen in their repeated attempts to re-create Shorrosh or Shorrosh like characters. There was something appealing in an Arab Christian debating Muslims.
So these Christian think-tanks got together and their dark hearts and imaginations began to whisper. What if we could get an ex Muslim convert to Christianity who could expose Islam? Or even better than that, not just any ex Muslim, how about an Arab ex Muslim!!! Or even better how about an Arab ex Muslim from Saudi Arabia (gasp, the heartland of Islam!). It started to sound better and better. The case of “Ex Muslims” Ergun Caner and Emir Caner”.
Look at the darkness in this man’s eyes. This particular controversy really became heated in the Evangelical Christian world, bringing in such notable Christian apologists such as Norman Geisler. Battle lines were drawn up between Calvinist and Arminians and it was the beginning of the rift between James White and former protege Sam Shamoun. Listen to this Evangelist, this man who has been “saved by the blood of Jesus” tell bald-faced lies about Islam and Muslims.
Listen to him poor out lie after lie after lie…
Look at his claims that he knows the Arabic language here…
Ergun Caner was defended by Norman Geisler here:
Some more lies of Ergun Caner…If you want a complete catalog of videos exposing this mans lies and deceit I would highly suggest this YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/mokhan247/videos
Calling the saum (fasting) pronounced as Psalm as Swan (a species of bird) is also awful.
One of the most awful lies is his claim in the following video: ‘One of our leaders Shabir Ally ….the debater is often famous for saying before he died….’ …https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uZvMX68QPg alhamdulillah!
By the way that the brother was able to recover the YouTube videos. Because initially, these dishonest and hateful Christians tried to censor the truth!
Now watch this ‘expert’ on Islam give the Shahadah the testification of faith… He says it is “Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem Muhamdulillahir rahman ir raheem… WHAT!?!
Now if you of you people doubt that this is not the Shahadah here is a simple straight forward challenge to you. You can verify it in one of two ways. 1) You can go down to your local Masjid (Mosque) and simply ask one are the words a person has to say to become a Muslim.) You can go to youtube and type up people converting to Islam. You will see them say the following words:
“Ash Hadu An La Ilaha il law lah WA Ash Hadu Anna Muhammed ar Rasulullah”. (I bear witness that there is no God except God and I bear witness that Muhammed is the Messenger of God)
By the way, a “devout X Muslim” like Ergun Caner should have known the Shahadah. It is only said 9 times during the five obligatory prayers. Once in the morning prayer. Twice in the afternoon, mid-afternoon, sunset, and night prayers. That’s only for the obligatory prayers let alone the optional devotional prayers.
This mix up on his part is a huge blunder! Mohammed Khan makes a good point that Ergun Caner throws in the hard KH sound so you get KHaadeth, rather than hadeeth.
Also in Islam, the question ‘Who is Jesus’ is not a difficult question at all. Jesus is the word of God, Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus is the Messenger of Allah. Jesus was born of the virgin Mary.
Again Ergun Caner’s blatant ignorance of the teachings of Islam is manifest. He mentions that he has the courage to go in front of a Masjid (Mosque) and tell us all day long that Jesus is the Messiah. We would simply reply Ameen (Amin).
When the angels said: “O Mary! Allah gives you the good news of a Word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus (Esau) son of Mary (Mariam) who is illustrious in this world and the hereafter, and who is one of those brought near (to Allah).” (Qur’an 3:45)
What is so hard to answer?
Notice when he mentions about the Church that doesn’t exist anymore? He crosses his arms please also pay close attention to his eyes. Why do they look away after the soft chuckle?
If this is not devilish and arrogant I don’t know what is.
There are also ways to find out if that Church existed remember he said it was not far from a Mosque (Masjid).
What mosque is it that he said he attended? Umm Google map and yellow pages anyone???As you know already as well, the clever and crafty John Ankerberg has also moved to have the videos removed from YouTube?
Why? Why would John Ankerberg a man who has held open debates between various views and religions on his television program do this? Why? Simple $$$$
Which Christian was it that said everybody who bought the books above should come together sign a petition and demand a complete 100% refund for the garbage books they bought thinking that it was done by scholars and people who had great insight into the religion of Islam!
Where was Ergun Caner born? In Stockholm Sweden or in Istanbul Turkey?
Note that he mentions he was a ‘sand monkey’ How much sand is there in Turkey? Again google map anyone? Or simply ask Christian missionaries who have been in Turkey.
Again the pejorative term ‘sand monkey’ makes you wonder what his true feelings are about Black people in America? I mean the term ‘sand monkey’ is a derogatory term used to disparage Arabs.
So even if he is of Turkish ancestry it was a racist remark to make about Arabs.
Then watch the end of the clip where he comes and speaks Arabic to his Turkish father in excitement he says ‘Isa bin Allah’ (Jesus son of God) why would you speak Arabic to your Turkish father? But even more revealing and the part where is where he follows that up with his gibberish. He is making you people out to play the fool.
Christians wake up! You have missionaries that go to Turkey and Arab countries and speak Farsi, Turkish, and Arabic. How about you do the following: You get one of these people who speak Turkish, or Arabic to play this video in front of Ergun and ask him what he was saying.
Then it’s game over! Unless he was going to claim that he was speaking in tongues out of ecstasy which would not surprise me. However, I would have to say that Christian credibility seems to wear thin as the days go by why this man is running the show at Liberty University. I have sent e-mails to Muslims asking that we stop engaging in any inter-faith dialogues of debates with any representative of the SBC until Ergun Caner is brought to justice.
I also have friends in high places and I think that it’s possible you could see the SBC missionary activities cease completely in all areas of operation in every Muslim country across the globe. You can laugh if you want to but once it is shown that Christians will stoop to any level to bring “the truth” this will alarm Muslims who do allow Christians to preach in their countries openly and will show that the Christians are not people who play by the rules.
Would the SBC like the news of waking up one morning and finding there was a joint decision by 57 member states of the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) to halt all missionary activity? Not just the SBC because Christian indecision in the United States would reflect poorly upon Christians in general. I am sorry if you think it’s not fair. Welcome to my world where actions are done and taken by a few people in the name of Islam reflect poorly upon Muslims as a whole!
Did Ergun Caner Covert to Christianity in 1982? Did the brothers both convert in 1982 or did one of them convert a year prior?
Also the view that the Shi’a and the Sunni believe that the “Khalif” actually word should be Imam disappeared into ‘the caves’ is not factual. The belief in the Mahdi still alive and waiting to reappear is a belief held among the Shi’a but not among Sunni Muslims. Look at this book and look at the names on there. This book was quite a little cash cow for Ergun “FETHI” Caner and his brother Emir.
Only Allah (swt) knows what that young man was facing while growing up with someone as repulsive and vulgar as Ergun. Very heartbreaking indeed. Before he died Ergun’s son Braxton was posting pictures of him making out with girls and vulgar words.
We as Muslims should pray for Ergun Caner and his family. We pray that Allah (swt) removes the darkness from his heart and brings him into the light of a loving relationship with our Merciful Creator. May Allah (swt) make it easy on him and his family during this time of distress.
Next Is Hassamo Shamoun, Sam Shamoun.
He was a big part of the premier Christian apologetic website interacting with Islam and Muslims. answering-islam.org Shamoun’s stomping grounds was a social media platform called, “Paltalk”.
Paltalk would be used by Hassamo as a place where he could ‘field test’ his arguments. However, when he would come across knowledgeable Muslims, Sam would revert to screaming, yelling, and hurling all kinds of vulgar obscenities. It was clear that this was not a man who found peace but someone who was disturbed mentally.
These are just some of the small samples of Sam Shamoun interacting with other Christians (let alone Muslims) Hassamo loves to attack the character of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Ironically this distasteful attack on the Blessed Messenger (saw) marriage backfired on Hassamo “Sam” Shamoun when his wife divorced him. Not following the principles of God’s guidance Hassamo thought it was morally acceptable for his wife to be alone with a strange man in the house and so forth.
sam_shamoun_divorce_papers_due_to_long_abuse_to_his_wife Usually, most sensible people will do their level best to hide their character flaws. Not Hassamo he was an open book. He would crush, humiliate, destroy, vex, accost, assail, brutalize, assault, hurl abuse, and vitriolic all for the glory of Christ. His whole apologetics career was ended when the U.S court system stated:
Michelle requested that a two-year order of protection prohibited Sam from harassing, stalking, or physically abusing Michelle. Granting Michelle sole possession of the parties’ marital residence, and prohibiting Sam from entering the residence of Michelle’s place of employment.
Now what I find sad is that many Christians even after being aware of Hassamo’s vile behavior will come to his defense. Yet you have to keep in mind that Hassamo’s ex-wife Michelle is also a Christian.
So why take the testimony of a Sam Shamoun (who is clearly under the bondage of demons) over the testimony of his Christian wife? Not only that but it is a small world and there is much more than Michelle could have disclosed in regards to the very sick and disgusting behavior of Hassamo. What’s also interesting is that Sam Shamoun has burned so many bridges in the Christian community in the United States. As a person who believed in Reformed Theology, it certainly did not make him many friends across the aisle. Whereas James White has exposed Sam Shamoun’s courtship of Rome and Sam’s continuing march toward Roman Catholicism. That move makes sense for Sam Shamoun because his $$$ is drying up and Rome has plenty of $$$. Hassamo “Sam” Shamoun is attacking Protestants more and more particularly Calvinist and Reformed Theology. Sam recently admitted that for years he was worshiping a false god and inviting Muslims to believe in a false god, the ‘god of Calvinism’. Sam currently is gearing up for a conflict with Orthodox Christians (who cannot offer the same amount of cash infusion) that Roman Catholic Church can.
James White goes discusses this in the above video. Shamoun’s march towards Rome. The interesting thing is once Sam makes it official you have to wonder about all those evangelicals who cheered Sam on with his filthy language and vulgar methodology, will they support him when he crosses the Tiber river?
Conclusion: Muslims should pray for Hassamo Shamoun and his family. Pray that they can pick up the pieces of their lives and move forward. That Hassamo will find it in his heart to be a loving father to his two daughters and support them financially. That he will consider his vulgar speech that is all over the internet and hope that Allah will guide him not to speak like that anymore.
It is my hope that Sam Shamoun will one day find fulfillment and peace in loving willful submission to Allah (swt). However, and I say this not as an adversary but as someone genuinely concerned. I believe that he is in need of Ruqya. I can’t believe that any discerning Christian has not seen that the man is clearly in spiritual bondage. He constantly talks about others ‘manifesting’ which is the biggest projection ever. He often has weird body movements and jerks, which coupled with his vulgar language (towards Christians) let alone Muslims one can only imagine what ever entity resides him it certainly is not aligned to the light.
Next, we have David Wood.
David Wood is best known for being 1/2 of team ‘Atheist-Christ’. That is he teams up with an Atheist to attack Islam. This dynamic team of ‘Atheist -Christ’ has left many Christians puzzled. If Jesus is good enough for the Muslims why is he not good enough for his Atheist partner? David has his blog, ‘Answering Muslims’, and ‘Acts 17 apologetics’.
In the picture below he is wearing his wife’s gown (showing disrespect to his wife and not guarding her own privacy) while he was mocking Islam & Muslims.
Also, while doing this he blatantly ignored what God said stating the matter:
“A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.” (Deuteronomy 22:5)
I have often noticed when watching David Wood speak you can hear even until today the dry monotone in his speech. There is a lack of voice inflection. There is the twitching of the left eyebrow when he talks about uncomfortable subjects. So what has David Wood been up to lately?
David Wood has recently made a video with two ex Muslims. Can you imagine a Christian who hopes that Muslims hear the gospel of Christ shares a platform with two ex Muslims (Atheist) and does not spend anytime on the program sharing the gospel of Christ Jesus with them?! The only platform that brought those three together was HATRED for Islam. David Wood switched off evangelization mode and went into a complete debauched and depraved meltdown. See for yourself:
So this is what Christian apologetics has come to. David Wood in the video above suggests that he will create a domain name “pissonthequran.com”. Is this what Christianity is all about? You people keep telling the world that Islam is this and that and yet you go and make statements like this. No Muslim would ever even dare to make a website ‘pissonthebible.com”, only a perverse person who is in spiritual bondage would suggest things. That is the huge disadvantage that we Muslims have in debates with Christians. They can hurl all kinds of insults at the Blessed Prophet (saw), and yet we cannot say in kind about Christ Jesus (upon whom be peace) because he is a Prophet of Allah, he is the Messiah, and we believe in him. To lambaste Jesus or insult Jesus would take one out of Islam.
Another person doing the rounds is an individual by the name pseudonym of “Christian Prince”. I have listened to some of his “debates” with “Muslims” and they seem staged to me. Sure enough, my suspicion was confirmed. This “Christian Prince” was recently busted in a huge way when he lied about having a debate with a Muslim teacher, our beloved and kind brother Sabeel Ahmed. Mash’Allah Sabeel Ahmed has a beautiful disposition and a great deal of patience when outing this charlatan.
Mash’Allah Sabeel Ahmed has a beautiful disposition and a great deal of patience when outing this charlatan. This Anonymous “Christian Prince” has been called out to have a public moderated debate. Yet, he does not believe that God can protect him like he did here: “Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spoke, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire.” (Daniel 3:26)
Next is “Al Fadi”
This is the “Al Fadi” that you see pictured above going around the speaking circuit (much like Ergun Caner did). Now I am going to post his presentation of his testimony. (and if it gets deleted or removed) no worries because I have downloaded it.
So I have listened to the whole presentation. I have heard him say the word “MOZLUM” no less than 5 times in his presentation. Now there is absolutely no way on Earth that this guy is from Saudi Arabia and pronouncing ‘Muslim’ as ‘Mozlum’. He says @5:45 “Most my life in Saudi I memorized a book called the Qur’an.” “Half by age 12,” He says he went to an “Islamic University in Mecca” (doesn’t tell us the name of it). He went to study shariah to become a shariah scholar and judge later. He claims to have studied at the Local University pursuing an Engineering Degree at the U of A. Then he latter changed his major and went to ASU. He claims in the video that he was training to be a ‘jihadist’ (remember Ergun Caner gave the same story), and he (Al Fadi) was going to go to Afghanistan. Suddenly was abruptly stopped by his mother. What is interesting is that by his own modus oprendi has admitted that Allah (swt) is worth dying for and Jesus is not. Why do I say this? The fact that he uses a ‘pseudonym’. He uses a false name. T
o his credit and unlike (Christian Prince) at least he has given us a face. He hasn’t remained anonymous like “Abdul Saleeb” However, his name “Al Fadi” means the Redeemer. So that is obviously not his Muslim name.
This name is prevalent among Jordanian Christians in particular. Now, this is the new-look for “Al Fadi” So here we have “Al Fadi” going for the traditional Arab look (pictured left) and why not? The last person to try that was Dr. Anis Shorrosh pictured on the right. A live conversation with “Al Fadi” with someone talking to him a bit about his background would certainly yield some eye-opening inconsistencies.
Look at the end of the day both Muslims and Christians are convinced that one of us is upon the truth and the other is upon error. Yet, the number of Christians involved in Muslim and Islamic apologetics has been outed again and again for lies, deceit, deception, and a complete lack of concern for truth and transparency.
As I have said at the beginning of the article and I will say here again any Christian that encounters Islam one of three things happens:
a) Either they begin a serious study of Islam and end up seeing that Islam is a more cogent faith and world view than Christianity ever could be. They convert to Islam as I have.
b) They remain convinced of their own faith but develop a deep admiration and appreciation for Islam and Muslims (rather they admit it publicly or not)
c) Their hearts become diseased and their spiritual ailments are amplified and this becomes obvious in time. Greed, avarice, lust, anger, hate, racism begins to drip from their writings and public statements. Without fail repeatedly these people end up being humiliated publicly in this life. The hereafter is a painful and everlasting torment for them.
The truth is that many Christians are in spiritual bondage. Many of them have real trouble with marital fidelity, trouble erasing racism from their hearts, trouble with loving money, gambling, a predilection for the same sex, wrestling with drug addiction, and more. Many of them also find many Christian teachings problematic. chief of the more practical ones is the issue surrounding divorce. Many of them find are uncertain of their salvation and many of them who take time to seriously study Christian concepts of the Creator realize that it is not cogent at all.
What else explains the reason they feel they have to cheat and lie about Islam and Muslims? Why do they have to lie to their own congregations and people of their own denomination? Why do they need to use these types of tactics if they are certain of their beliefs?
It is my hope that this article will reach those people who have been lied to and duped by Christian missionary deceit. That you will take time to go to a Mosque yourself. That you will read the Qur’an yourself. That you will sit with learned Muslims and ask them about the questions that you have in your heart and mind.
“They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it.” (Qur’an 61:8)
“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized as the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.” (Qur’an 5:83)
And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. Those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge of it, but only follow conjecture. For certainly, they did not kill him.” (Qur’an 4:157)
﷽
Al hamdulillah. All praise be to Allah (swt) for the right guidance. Whomever Allah guides no no one can misguide them. Whomever Allah allows to stray no one can guide them.
Now, there are Muslim sects as well as Pseudo-Islamic sects that are willing to assert that our creator Allah (swt) is ignorant of the Jewish penal system. May Allah (swt) guide them and us!
Among such groups are basically, the entirety of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah, the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiyani movement as well as the Ismaili Nizari.
Their views are unnecessarily convoluted and have caused unnecessary confusion on this matter.
These same groups without even a shred of evidence will look at the following text of the Qur’an and some how imagine and insert Romans and Roman Crucifixion via a Patibulum(Cross)!
The People of the Scripture ask you to bring down to them a book from the heaven. But they had asked of Moses [even] greater than that and said, “Show us Allah outright,” so the thunderbolt struck them for their wrongdoing. Then they took the calf [for worship] after clear evidences had come to them, and We pardoned that. And We gave Moses a clear authority. (Qur’an 4:153)
And We cursed them for their breaking of the covenant and their ingratitude towards the signs of Allah and their killing of the prophets* without right and their saying, “Our hearts are wrapped”. Rather, Allah has sealed them because of their ingratitude, so they believe not, except for a few. That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge. (Qur’an 4:155-156)
The above text certainly is not talking about Christians at all!
There are no records of Christians killing their prophets. The only Prophets of the Christians are Yahya (John) & Esau (Jesus).
Also, Christians would never utter against Mary a false charge. In the sense of saying saying demeaning of her (Allah has honoured her in this life and in the life to come!)
Read the Qur’an dear brothers and sisters.
Read it from Qur’an 4:153-157.
Now just on reading that text alone where are the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiyani/ The Ismail-Nizari, and the entirety of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah conjuring up Romans from?
The fact, is all of these groups, the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiyani, the Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah, and the Ismaili Nizari have to depend upon extraneous material and information outside of the Qur’an and the Sunnah to assert their rather baseless claims that some how when we read this text we must imagine it speaking about Romans!
The Arabic word for Romans is not something unfamiliar to the Qur’an.
“The Romans have been defeated.” (Qur’an 30:2) غُلِبَتِ ٱلرُّومُ ghulibati l-rūm
This is akin to Muslims reading Surah Ikhlas, the 112th chapter of the Qur’an and looking at the Arabic text and imaging it speaking about Greeks and the Trojan War.
This would come across to any sane Muslims as something very wacky! It is very left field.
Jews and Judaism unnecessarily get left out in the cold.
Imagine Christians and Jews debating about an issue concerning Muslims and Muslims were not even invited to the table?! It would be quite rude. However, this happens with the Jews and Judaism by us Muslims virtually all…..the…..time!
So I reached out to chabad.org and I thought I would ask practicing Jews what Jews believe. Who would have thought? Such a novel concept right? I will share the short but very polite and insightful e-mail exchange with Rabbi Dov Stein
Here is a comparison/contrast of four views that one may come across today.
Traditionally Sunni view.
Modern Sunni view that adopted the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiani view.
The Ahmadiyyah/Qadiani view.
The Ismail Nizari/Todd Lawson view.
All four of the above views have the following in common.
All four posit (without any evidence from the Qur’an or Sunnah) that Qur’an 4:153-157 is some how speaking about Romans.
All four posit (without any evidence from the Qur’an or Sunnah) that Qur’an 4:153-157 is speaking about a Roman Crucifixion via a Patibulum(Cross).
All four get the basis for their views from Isrā’īliyyāt material.
All four use this Isrā’īliyyāt material to impose a view upon the Qur’anic text.
All four posit a a Roman Crucifixion via a Patibulum (Cross) as historical reality with them differing on rather or not Jesus was placed on a Patibulum (Cross) or not. Rather he was killed on a Patibulum (Cross) or not.
Imami Shi’a tradition.
Want to know who does not speak about Qur’an 4:157?
The following:
Muhammed al Baqir. al-Hasan al-‘Askari. Furat ibn Ibrahim al-Kufi. ali ibn Ibrahim-al-Qummi & Muhammed ibn Mas’ud al-Ayyashi.
“Of some interest is also the fact that there is not even any mention of the verse (Qur’an 4:157) in the voluminous collection of Shi’i traditions, Usul al-Kafi, complied by the Twelver scholar al-Kulayni. Indeed, it is not until the first major tafsir work of Twelver Shi’ism by Abu Ja’far al-Tusi that the problem is broached at all.”
Source: (The Crucifixion and the Qur’an pg. 75 Todd Lawson)
The one thing all four views have in common is that they indirectly by their own ignorance of the Jewish penal system attribute to Allah (swt) ignorance of the Jewish penal system!
Insh’Allah will explain how and why that is the case.
So, I had sent an e-mail to Chabad.org and I received a very cordial and swift reply.
“Capital punishment in Judaism does not involve crucifixion.“
This is very important admission by the respected Rabbi because lays to bed the idea that Jews crucify people. It is simply not part of their penal system.
Our, the Ibadi view is a very simple plain reading of the text. We let the text stand on it’s own without it being interpreted in light of the Isrā’īliyyāt material.
What is that simple conclusion? The very simple basic conclusion for anyone who has even a modicum of Arabic reading comprehension skills is that Qur’an 4:153-157 is speaking about a group of the Jews from the Children of Israel.
The People of the Scripture ask you to bring down to them a book from the heaven. But they had asked of Moses [even] greater than that and said, “Show us Allah outright,” so the thunderbolt struck them for their wrongdoing. Then they took the calf [for worship] after clear evidences had come to them, and We pardoned that. And We gave Moses a clear authority. (Qur’an 4:153)
“But they had asked of Moses [even] greater than that and said, “Show us Allah outright,” This neither refers to Christians or to Romans.
Then they took the calf [for worship] after clear evidences had come to them. This neither refers to Christians or to Romans.
And We cursed them for their breaking of the covenant and their ingratitude towards the signs of Allah and their killing of the prophetswithout right and their saying, “Our hearts are wrapped”. Rather, Allah has sealed them because of their ingratitude, so they believe not, except for a few. That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge. (Qur’an 4:155-156)
and their killing of the prophets without right As this is a continuation of the theme it neither refers to Christians or to Romans.
that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge. This neither refers to Christians or to Romans.
And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. Those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge of it, but only follow conjecture. For certainly, they did not kill him.” (Qur’an 4:157)
So let us explore the key passage of this text:
“Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him.”
It cannot refer to Christians. Christians would not kill Jesus. Nor would they make a claim that ‘We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary.’
It cannot refer to Romans simply because the passage does not say so. There is no Arabic word for Romans any where in the text.
The whole theme of Qur’an 4:153-157 is speaking about a group of Jews from the Children of Israel.
So it should be beyond evident that Qur’an 4:153-157 is not addressing Romans nor Christians.
So now let us look at another key text:
“And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)”
So virtually everyone translates the text as
“They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him.”
Even the Hafs Qur’an Only religion* disappointed me. Here I was hoping they might show a little initiative but no. They had to go and follow the others.
* Refers to (those who platform a Qur’an only approach)
So let’s go with that for a moment. “nor did they crucify him.”
We have already established that the context of Qur’an 4:153-157 is speaking about a group of Jews from the children of Israel.
So now Qur’an 4:153-157 is reupdating the claims of this group of Jews with:
And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they crucify him.”
However, the good Rabbi has informed us:
“Capital punishment in Judaism does not involve crucifixion.“
In fact, in a follow up e-mail with the respected Rabbi, Dov Stein we are informed:
“as they are hung after being executed.”
“where the body was positioned after stoning.”
You have to be a very gullible person to imagine Jews boasting: “Yeah we killed Christ Jesus the Son of Mary by a method of execution not sanctioned by the Torah ha ha ha!”
Now if you notice in the first e-mail exchange the respected Rabbi gave me two links.
“I.e. after they have been executed, they are hung publicly. The person is hung up just before sunset and taken down immediately thereafter. See Hilchos Sanhedrin 15:6-7.”
It is a positive commandment to hang a blasphemer and an idolater after they have been executed, as implied by Deuteronomy 21:23: “A person who is hung is cursing God.” This refers to the blasphemer. With regard to an idolater, Numbers 15:30 states: “He blasphemes God.”
A man is hung, but a woman is not hung, as implied by Deuteronomy 21:22: “When a man has sinned and is condemned to die, after he is executed, you shall hang him….”ו
How is the mitzvah of hanging carried out? After the convicted is stoned, a beam is implanted in the ground with a rafter protruding from it. The two hands of the corpse are intercrossed and he is hung close to sunset.
He is released immediately. If not, a negative commandment is transgressed, as Ibid.:23 states: “Do not let his corpse tarry overnight on the beam.”
Now the commentary that you have seen above is by the legendary Rabbi, Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides). That commentary was on the following text of the Torah:
“If any party is guilty of a capital offense and is put to death, and you impale the body on a stake, you must not let the corpse remain on the stake overnight, but must bury it the same day. For an impaled body is an affront to God: you shall not defile the land that your God יהוה is giving you to possess.”
“If a man commits a sin for which he is sentenced to death, and he is put to death, you shall [then] hang him on a pole. But you shall not leave his body on the pole overnight. Rather, you shall bury him on that [same] day, for a hanging [human corpse] is a blasphemy of God, and you shall not defile your land, which the Lord, your God, is giving you as an inheritance.”
Now is there anything with in the sacred sources of the Jews that the Qur’an may be refuting or interacting with?
“At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.” (John 8:59)
“Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” (John 10:31-32)
“But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, “this is evident sorcery!” (Qur’an 61:6)
Recall that the Qur’an mentions a double denial or a double negation.
Simply stating: They didn’t kill him would be sufficient. It covers every mode or method of death known to mankind.
Yet the Qur’an deliberately gives us a double denial/double negation.
Recall that the Jews do not crucify people but they do hang/impale them after stoning them to death. In other words a post mortem suspension humiliation.
Recall the words of the Torah:
“For an impaled body is an affront to God.”
“And they did not kill himnor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ )”
The double negation certainly rules out the Ismaili Nizari /Todd Lawson position.
That is because they understand the part of the text: “they did not kill him” (as a reference to Jesus soul). However, they do assert (without a shred of evidence) the things the other 3 groups hold to as asserted in my points: 1-5 above.
This is indeed a glaring problem for the Ismaili Nizari/Todd Lawson position. The Ismaili Nizari/Todd Lawson assert that a crucifixion happened.
Remember, that neither the Nizari/Todd Lawson do not assert the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiani interpretation of Crucifixion as ‘crucified to death’.
You see dear respected readers. All of these groups: The entirety of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah, the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiyani movement as well as the Ismaili Nizari/Todd Lawson have made Qur’an 4:153-157 so unnecessarily convoluted. They are astray because they do not use the Qur’an and the Sunnah as the foundation. Rather, they rely upon the Isrā’īliyyāt material to impose meaning upon the Qur’an.
The Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah faltered because they relied upon the Isrā’īliyyāt material to impose meaning upon the Qur’an. They have never been able to substantiate their view from the Qur’an or the Sunnah of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
The Imami Shi’i , the Ismaili-Nizar faltered because they did not check the base presuppositions of the Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah. They relied upon those presuppositions but came to different exegetical conclusions. However, they assumed the base points that the Sunni assumed.
The Ahmadiyyah (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) faltered because he too did not check the base presuppositions of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah. He relied upon those presuppositions but came to different exegetical conclusions.
The latter Sunnis who adopted the Ahmadiyyah position as it was useful for debates: (Ahmed Deedat, Shabir Ally, Yusuf Ismail, Yusuf Buccas). However, there has to be more credit given to them because at the very least they found issue with the prevailing dominant Sunni position on the issue. Where they faltered was because they did questioned some of the assumptions of the Isrā’īliyyāt material that informed that tradition, but did not think to question it in total.
Certainly with all these groups as with any who do good their reward is with Allah (swt). There is no doubt about that. Those views may have been helpful in the past. We have a better way.
There is a very simple solution to all of this. Tafsir al-Quran bi-l-Quran. (Interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an)
When we do this. We can see that: Qur’an 4:153-157 is speaking to a group of Jews from the Children of Israel. No Romans or No Christians any where in the text.
We can also see that if we do a textual analysis of Ṣād-lām-bā’: ṣalb and ṣallab refer to a bone from the upper body to the waist [i.e., the backbone]
We will clearly see the above text: Qur’an 4:153-157 (especially given that it relates to Jewish claims) does not refer to a Roman Crucifixion via a Patibulum(Cross)!
Think about it!
The Qur’an when dealing with the Christians speaks about the alleged deity of Jesus and his allegedly being the Son of Allah.
So what is the implication of the double negation (not killing or impailing) being directed towards a group of Jews from the Children of Israel?
You did not kill him.
You did not impale him. This is especially important because: For an impaled body is an affront to God
Look at this different translations of 1 Corinthians 1:23
This whole text Qur’an 4:153-157 has noting at all to do with Romans.
We don’t have to get all fancy schmancy and start talking about Jesus dying physically on a Roman Patibulum (Cross) but not his soul!
We don’t have to get fancy schmancy and start talking about Allah creating Christianity because he made someone else look like Jesus and that someone else was killed on a Roman Patibulum (Cross).
We don’t have to get all fancy schmancy and start talking about Jesus was indeed put on a Roman Patibulum (Cross) but was taken down alive, presumably after he swooned, fainted or passed out.
“He is is going forth to be stoned.” وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ they did not kill him
He was hanged (impaled) on the even of the Passover. وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ they did not impale him.
Very simple very easy to understand. Tafsir al-Quran bi-l-Quran. No need to use the Isrā’īliyyāt to impose meaning upon the Qur’an.
Well, for those of you who want to believe in the crucifixion of Jesus or not believe he was crucified Knock yourself out! The idea of Roman Crucifixion via a Patibulum(Cross) is alien to the Qur’an. It neither affirms it nor negates it.
Final Thoughts.
What are the implications?
This deals a final nail in the coffin of the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiani movement. The information contained in this article is a death blow to their movement. Mirza Ghulam is evidently a false Prophet. He was not aware that Qur’an 4:153-157 is not speaking about the Romans.
We don’t have to deal with missionary claims that the Qur’an denies a supposed ‘historical fact’. It is simply irrelevant to the Qur’an.
That a purist approach to interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an makes the most sense.
We don’t have to follow the Salafi Manhaj, the Dawatus Salafiyyah, the Ahmadiyyah, the Nizari Ismail and whoever else believe in Isrā’īliyyāt material with no sanad, no connected chains going back to the claimed source material.
We don’t have to imagine the creator, Allah (swt) being unaware of the Jewish penal code. Astaghfirullah.
The Jews can no longer be called Christ Killers, because the Qur’an exonerates them of the charge.
Prima Quran 