“The fornicator marries none but the fornicator and the idolater marries none but the idolatress. This is all forbidden to the believers.” (Qur’an 24:3)
﷽
One of the known positions in the Ibadi schoolis that one cannot marry a person whom they have committed fornication or adultery with. Rather, those people who have done so are to be punished, banished and then only to marry among those who have committed similar acts.
Those who associate partners with Allah or worship other than Allah are to be married among themselves. Those Muslims who have committed adultery/fornication are to only marry those Muslims who have similarly committed acts of adultery/fornication. They are forbidden to marry the ones they have committed fornication/adultery with.
Ad-Darooriyyat Al-Khams—The Five Basic Necessities that are protected and recognized by Islamic law-shari’ah.
The five necessities—religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property are defined.
This ruling would fall under the category of: preservation of lineage.
The following is a presentation put forward by our respected teacher, Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui. -May Allah continue to bless him and benefit us by him.
If you notice, many English translations of this text seem convoluted. It gives the impression that if a Muslim man or woman committed fornication that they could marry an idol worshiper. Nothing can be further from the truth.
We do want to comment that we personally feel that all translations and translators of the Qur’an have failed to convey what Qur’an 24:3 means and we have yet to see a translation that translates the meaning accurately. We put this right up there with Qur’an 4:157 as the worst translated text that translations and translators have failed to convey.
One may see for themselves the disparate translations of Qur’an 24:3 here:
The major reason why we loath all translations of Qur’an 24:3 is that when you look at it:
“The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress.” It gives the impression that a Muslim male or female or committed fornication has two options for his/her future.
a) marry a believer who has done a similar offense.
b) marry a mushrik who has done a similar offense.
We would translate it as: “The fornicator marries none but the fornicator and the idolater marries none but the idolatress.” The reason that the mushirk is put in this context is to show the level of disdain that Allah (swt) has for people who commit fornication.
Looking at the verse itself:
“T”The fornicator marries none but the fornicator and the idolater marries none but the idolatress. This is all forbidden to the believers” (Qur’an 24:3)
The believer does not marry the mushrik
The believer who commits fornication marries only a believer that similarly has committed fornication.
What becomes very strange is how some will agree to point 1. They will say yes, a believer can never marry a mushrik. Yet, those same people will say, but a believer who has committed fornication can marry a believer who has not done such an act!
This is clearly inconsistent.
We wanted to comment on two sections of this article. The first is the following paragraph.
“There are cases where some men pursuing an illegal sexual relationship, trick and deceive women that resist their sexual advances. The most commonly deceptive trick used by these men is to entice women into fake marriage proposals in order to coerce an unlawful relationship with them. Many women, especially younger women, are duped by these men, so they accept and yield to their seduction only to realize later that it was an utter lie.” -Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui
“It is logically conceivable, therefore, that the legalization of post-fornication and post-adultery marriages has been an open invitation for committing adultery among young Muslim men and women. The permissibility of post-fornication and post-adultery marriages has been the reason for moral corruption and carefree attitude among young people when it comes to sexual relationships. In such societies, men see no consequences for their conduct; and a gullible woman thinks she will be rewarded with marriage by succumbing to a pre-marriage sexual relationship. She will have no reason not to believe, since the society she lives in has accepted such marriages. Had the idea of the impermissibility of post-fornication and post-adultery marriages prevailed in Muslim societies and been entrenched in their culture, a Muslim woman would not have been taken advantage of: she could recognize a lie when she heard it. She could respond to it by saying that post-fornication and post-adultery marriages are not allowed in the Islamic religion. So the fact is that there will be no marriage between us after we engage in an illegal sexual relationship.” -Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui
Prima Qur’an comments:
The above paragraph are very sound in reasoning. Our respected teacher, Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui has made a very forceful argument.
“That is because each of the two partners, in such marriages, is most likely to doubt the other to be an adulterer, since as adulterers they found each other prior to their marriage. The fact that one spouse knows what mischief the other spouse is capable of doing can be utterly destructive to their mutual trust and mutual respect, and eventually to the marriage itself. Thus, it can be conclusively said that mutual trust and mutual respect lead to happiness and tranquility in any marriage. Conversely, the lack of trust and respect between spouses, which could be very much the result of their premarital mating, nourishes the meltdown of love and increases tension in the marriage.” -Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui
Prima Qur’an comments:
Here we disagree with our respected teacher because the reasoning is not sound.
It is not explained how a person who has committed fornication/adultery and then marries another person who has similarly committed fornication/adultery would not suspect their spouse of mischief. After all, the reason they know they are able to marry each other is because of the very fact that both are equal for doing the same sin.
Meaning the only reason I have access to you for marriage is because you have been guilty of committing the exact same thing that I have been found guilty of.
Note — this is not an argument against the fiqh position; this is an argument against the use of rai’ (reason) that does not seem to follow through.
By limiting those who have committed fornication/adultery to marrying only those who have similarly done such things, it is one possible safety measure to stop the spread of sexual infectious diseases. Or, perhaps, to allow those who may have contracted an infectious sexual disease to enjoy the fruits of marriage and companionship among themselves.
The position is strong the practical implimentation is wanting.
This particular position in our school is very strong. We do not dispute this point. However, our school would struggle with practical implimentation of this ruling.
No one is saying that a person who committed fornication can never get married, but if the ruling is that they can only marry someone who has similarly committed fornication (not the one they did the deed with), how does this work?
Those in our school who hold this position there is a real disconnect here between the ruling and the practicality. This is especially true when we consider the following.
Islam does not encourage one to broadcast the sins that Allah (swt) has covered.
Islam allows for and encourages the safeguard of one’s honour.
A brother or sister does not necessarily approach friends or respected elders and say: “Excuse me, I have committed fornication. Do you have anyone among your friends or relatives that has committed fornication that is looking to get married?”
There is an encounter that was mentioned to me concerning Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h). He was in the middle of Oman and approached by a man from the Hanafi school. The man said, “Oh Shaykh, I have committed Zina and I really love this woman and I want her to be the mother of our children.” The Shaykh replied to the man: “May Allah give you better than her.”
Though it is not polite to say to the man’s face, we imagine that the Shaykh also thought: “May Allah give her better than you.”
Jabir reported Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying:
There is a remedy for every malady, and when the remedy is applied to the disease it is cured with the permission of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious.
Do note that this is a widely known position in the school. There are other voices in the Ibadi school that do not agree with the above position. If you are thinking of adopting the school or have questions on this matter, kindly consult a scholar of the school.
“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!
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a wife?” (Qur’an 6:101)
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)
﷽
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)
This a verse that is frequently misunderstood and used for very different, often opposing, theological arguments. We have identified the core issue: the misinterpretation of the word ṣāḥibatun (companion) and the failure to read the verse in its full rhetorical and theological context. The verse not a statement of inability or a lesson in biology. It is a powerful rhetorical device intended to shatter human-centric, anthropomorphic conceptions of God.
There are two categories of people who use this verse with two very different objectives.
Christians use this to show that the Qur’an gets Christian theology wrong.
Those that do not believe in miracles because they believe miracles violate the laws of causality. Thus, they want to negate the virgin birth of Christ Jesus.
The first category.
The Christian understanding is like the following:
Christians have no concept of The Father as having a companion. It would mean from their misunderstanding of the verse that the Qur’an is the product of a human mind. It would mean that the Qur’an has no grasp of the Christian theological position.
The second category.
“Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan (d. 1898) This famous social reformer and educationist of nineteenth-century India denied that Jesus was born of a virgin”
Source: (See his Commentary of the Quran Tafsir al-Quran, published by Munshi Fazl Din, Kashmiri Bazaar, Lahore, vol. ii, pp. 24–35. See the section titled ‘Muslim Newspaper Sidq’)
Understanding the rhetorical question.
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)
“How can Allah have a child, when He does not have a companion?”
Now the very clear and sensible understanding of this rhetorical question is simple. One Creator being contrasted with the idea of having a companion.
Who is Allah?
“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)
Who or what is the companion in the verse?
Look at all the verb forms as well as the nouns and their use within the Qur’an.
Ṣāḥibah (from the root Ṣ-Ḥ-B) carries meanings of companion, associate, partner, consort, or one who accompanies. In this theological context, it negates any notion of a divine partner, consort, or equal—not merely a spouse.
We find it interesting that, usually, people have decided to translate the Arabic term ‘sahibatun’ as ‘wife’ rather than ‘companion’. The Arabic term ‘zawja‘ (wife) is not used in this context at all. Whereas we would have translated it as ‘companion’ and for good reason. Whereas those in categories 1 and 2 above tend to focus on the term ‘wife’.
The way that these people have misunderstood the text, we either have to choose between some of the following options:
A) A creator that is incapable: (May Allah pardon us)
In other words Allah (swt) needs assistance in creating something.
B) A creator that is like his creation: (May Allah pardon us).
In other words Allah (swt) needs assistance in creating something.
C) A creator that takes on gender roles: (May Allah pardon us)
In other words if the companion is seen as a wife (zawja) than Allah (swt) is the husband.
D) A Creator who is ignorant of Christian theology: (May Allah pardon us) /An argument against virgin birth of Jesus.
In other words Allah needs a wife (zawja) in order to have a son. Which Christians do not believe. It would be a blatant misrepresentation of their beliefs. This argument is also used by those who want to argue against the virgin birth of Jesus (as).
Dealing with proposition A. The Incapable Creator
A creator that is incapable (May Allah pardon us)
It contravenes the following verse:
“His being alone is such that when He wills a thing to be, He but says unto it, “Be” — and it is.” (Qur’an 36:82)
It seems a bit of a stretch to think that Allah (swt) would make an argument that he couldn’t have a son without a companion and yet create a vast universe from the command ‘Kun’.
“It is not for Allah to take a son; exalted is He! When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, “Be,” and it is.” (Qur’an 19:35)
It even contravenes the very verse that they quote to make their case!
Resolution: Allah’s creative power is absolute and uncaused. He does not require mechanisms, partners, or processes.
Dealing with proposition B.The Creator Like Creation:
The creator that is like his creation (May Allah pardon us).
The following verse is sufficient to refute this.
“There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)
Resolution: An originator (badīʿ) is one who creates something without any prior model or precedent, emphasizing His utter transcendence and unlike-ness to creation.
Dealing with proposition C. The Gendered Creator
That the Creator takes on gender roles.
So, if Allah (swt) is making a rhetorical argument about human relations, is Allah (swt) now taking on the role of the husband or the male progenitor? Be sensible people! Allah (swt) is drawing attention to the fact that he has no peer, no companion.
Resolution: This is a result of the mistranslation “wife.” Islam completely rejects attributing gender or physical human characteristics to Allah. The argument is about divinity, not matrimony.
Dealing with proposition D.Ignorance of Christian Theology / Argument Against Virgin Birth.
A Creator who is ignorant of Christian theology/An argument against the virgin birth of Jesus.
Ironically, proposition D is also the position taken by those who want to deny the virgin birth of Christ Jesus in the Qur’an. So they (those who believe that miracles violate the laws of causality) have ironically sided with the Christian in their misunderstanding of the verse. Albeit to reach very different ends.
Christians have no concept of The Father as having a companion. It would mean from their misunderstanding of the verse that the Qur’an is the product of a human mind. It would mean that the Qur’an has no grasp of the Christian theological position.
The questions that are put forward by those who hold the view that the virgin birth (a miracle) would violate the laws of causality would be:
Why can’t Allah (swt) have a son without a wife?
To which the reply to this is:
On what consistent basis could you make this claim if taking the verse as a whole?
Another question for them would be: Based upon your interpretation of the verse, would you be opposed to the idea of Allah (swt) having a wife or a son based upon your logic?
In other words, do you find it a theological impossibility for Allah (swt) to have a wife and/or a son?
Another question for them would be:
Why would Allah (swt) need to be like his creation in the process of bringing a son into being?
Why not look at the whole verse? Why only quote part of it?
“Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He does not have a companion, and He created all things? And He is, of all things, Knowing.” (Qur’an 6:101)
First, Allah (swt) is the originator of the heavens and the earth. Do these people now believe that there was a wife or an associate, or a partner or a companion that helped Allah (swt) in this?
What natural laws did Allah (swt) follow or was beholden to when creating our reality? The verse all says, “He created all things.”
Why do people seek out companionship/friendship/associates and peers, to begin with? Ponder it.
The need for companionship?
“They say, “Allah has taken a child.” Glory be to Him! He is Self-Sufficient. Unto Him belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is on the earth. You have no authority for this. Do you say about Allah that which you know not?” (Qur’an 10:68)
Anything that human beings can receive from companions/friends/peers and associates stems from needs, and Allah (swt) is free from needs. Whatever people get from having associates and companions Allah (swt) can simply create it. Allah (swt) is the Self-Sufficient!
“There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)
If Allah (swt) had a companion /associate/ or peer that would entail being of the exact divine nature of Allah (swt). Allah (swt) crushes that notion with the following ‘He created ALL things’.
It is only logical that you can’t have two uncreated beings.
It is only logical that you can’t have two originators. This would also entail having a walad (a child). A walad or a child would be ‘like kind’.
The following verse more than drives home this point.
“Never did Allah take to Himself a son, and never was there with him any god– in that case would each god have certainly taken away what he created, and some of them would certainly have overpowered others; glory be to Allah above what they describe.” (Qur’an 23:91)
That verse crushes the idea that Allah (swt) could even have a companion.
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)
As for those who believe that miracles violate the laws of causality and are trying to reinterpret scripture to appease atheists, they understand Allah as saying, “But if I had a wife, I could have a child.”
Which is simply theologically unsound. Their interpretation of the text ignores the whole of the verse; and worse yet, it doesn’t negate for Allah (swt) the possibility of having a companion! (May Allah pardon us).
This is the same train of thought by those who believe miracles violate the laws of causality and therefore reject the virgin birth of Christ Jesus.
The focus for people who use this text as an argument is on the word ‘walad’, whereas Allah (swt) is saying he doesn’t have a ‘sahibatun’, a companion to begin with.
Resolution:
Against Christian Critique: The Qur’an is not misrepresenting mainstream Christian theology. It is attacking the logical implication of the claim “God has a son.” From a purely logical, non-creedal standpoint, if a being has a son, that son must be of the same nature (a peer). The Qur’an argues that since Allah has no peers or companions (no other divine being), the concept of a “son” is logically incoherent. It challenges the metaphysics of the Trinity, not the biology of the Nativity.
Against the Naturalist/Mu’tazilite Critique (e.g., Sir Syed Ahmad Khan): Those who deny miracles like the virgin birth because they “violate causality” profoundly misunderstand the verse. They interpret it as, “Allah needs a wife to have a son.” This is a catastrophic error. The verse is not providing the necessary condition for divine filiation (“a wife is needed”). It is rejecting the entire paradigm as impossible. Allah does not need a wife to have a son; He transcends the very category of having offspring altogether. The miracle of Jesus’s birth (ʿĪsā ibn Maryam) is a sign of Allah’s absolute power to create as He wills (Kun fa-Yakūn), outside of natural causality, which He Himself established. To use this verse to deny the virgin birth is to completely invert its meaning.
Conclusion:
The verse in question is a masterful rhetorical tool that:
Affirms Surah Ikhlas: Allah is One, Unique, without peer, partner, or companion.
Denies Anthropomorphism: Allah is beyond human categories like gender and biological reproduction.
Establishes Logical Coherence: The concept of “divine offspring” is metaphysically absurd because it requires a plurality within the divine, which is impossible for the One who created all things and has no equal.
Upholds, Not Denies, Miracles: The power that created the heavens and the earth from nothing can certainly create a human being in a womb without a father. Denying this is a failure to understand Allah’s absolute power, which the verse itself emphasizes.
The focus is not on the word walad (son) in isolation, but on the impossible pre-condition for it: a ṣāḥibah (companion). Since the pre-condition is impossible (Allah has no companion), the conclusion (Allah has a son) is also impossible. This is a definitive negation of any form of shirk (associating partners with God) while simultaneously affirming Allah’s limitless power to create as He wills.
“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)
For those interested, you may want to read the following articles:
“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:
“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.
“And We have also sent down unto you (Muhammed) the Reminder and the Advice (the Qur’an), that you may explain clearly to men what is sent down to them.” (Qur’an 16:44)
﷽
This article if anything is going to show the importance of understanding the Arabic language. Not only understanding the Arabic language but understanding the breadth, depth and richness of this language.
I have seen Christian polemist try to twist the Arabic meaning of the Qur’an to suit an agenda that they have. I have seen a “Muslim” from Harvard chime in to the same effect, to suggest that Christianity and Islam are basically the same. That same reformist surprise surprise, not grounded in the Arabic language.
I have seen a known follower of the ‘Hafs Only Quranic Transmission’ Religion opine on the matter. Relying upon his Lisan Al Arabi and Hans WEHR Dictionary of Modern Arabic.
All of them suffer from the same issue. They do not have even foundational knowledge of the Arabic language, let alone advanced knowledge.
For those interested you may want to revisit our article in which our noble teacher Shaykh Juma Mazrui (May Allah bless him) instructed us on the usage of Majaz in the Qur’an and Sunnah.
I’ll pull up something from the article there and re-post it here as it is relevant.
“Be patient over what they say, and remember Our servant, David, the possessor of many hands(l-aydi); he was one who repeatedly turned back [to Us].” (Qur’an 38:17)
Plural in Arabic begins with three and not two! So, at the very least David had three hands. However, notice something from the following site:
It is unanimous that they all translate ‘many hands’ as strength! Even the Salafi/Saudi translations do! Even the translation that gives us the most literal word for word meaning possible was too shy to translate David having many hands.
Be patient over what they say and remember Our servant, David, the possessor of strength; indeed, he was one who repeatedly turned back [to Allah ] (Sahih International)
Be patient (O Muhammad SAW) of what they say, and remember Our slave Dawood (David), endued with power. Verily, he was ever oft-returning in all matters and in repentance (toward Allah) (Muhsin Khan & Muhammed Al Hilal)
So we can say to those who believe in literal translations: Why don’t you take these verses on the apparent meaning? If Allah (swt) says that David has many hands then say that David had many hands!
You are shy to ascribe many hands to David but not to Allah (swt)?!
This is also the case any place any where we see ‘hands’ attributed to Allah (swt).
You can see all such instances relating to having power over, authority over, under the provision of etc…
“And that which We have revealed to you, of the Book is the truth, (ma bayna yadayhi) that is between its hands. Indeed, Allah , of His servants, is Acquainted and Seeing.” (Qur’an 35:31)
“They said, “O our people, indeed we have heard a Book revealed after Moses and (ma bayna yadayhi) what is between its hands. which guides to the truth and to a straight path.” (Qur’an 46:30)
“He has sent down upon you, the Book in truth, (ma bayna yadayhi) what is between its hands. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.” (Qur’an 3:3)
All of those verses when taken literally clearly states that the Qur’an has something ‘in between its hands’.
In the case of our Harvard graduate (mentioned above) he is among those who rail against the Salafist and their literal interpretations; but he himself is bereft of a consistent hermeneutic.
Even in the case of the one who follows the ‘Hafs Only Quranic Transmission’ Religion there was a clear acknowledgement that the text is an idiomatic expression and yet still decided on a literal translation! He even used Qur’an 3:3 as an example!
“Indeed, it is not the eyes that are blind, but it is the hearts in the chests that grow blind.” (Qur’an 22:46)
The very definition of idiomatic expression is:
an expression whose meanings cannot be inferred from the meanings of the words that comprise it.
THE DECEPTION OF CHRISITAN POLEMICIST
So how do these Christian apologist and polemicist use these idiomatic expressions in the Qur’an to deceive the layman Muslim?
“And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus , the son of Mary, (ma bayna yadayhi) having authority over the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and having authority over that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.” (Qur’an 5:46)
“And when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, “O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you(ma bayna yadayhi) having authority over that which came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad.” But when he came to them with clear evidences, they said, “This is obvious magic.” (Qur’an 61:6)
“He has sent down upon you, the Book in truth, (ma bayna yadayhi) have total authority. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.” (Qur’an 3:3)
How do these Christian polemist and apologist twist Qur’an 5:46 and Qur’an 61:6?
They want it to read something like this:
“And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus , the son of Mary, confirming the Torah that is between his hands; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and having authority over that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.” (Qur’an 5:46)
“And when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, “O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you confirming the Torah that is between my hands and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad.” But when he came to them with clear evidences, they said, “This is obvious magic.” (Qur’an 61:6)
Is it now obvious what they are up to?
They are trying by way of deception to make it look as if Jesus (as) had some physical copy of the Torah in his hands that he is reading from. Since the Torah of the time of Christ Jesus can reasonably be argued to be the one that Jews are using today -ipso facto it is preserved, untampered and uncorrupted.
This very idea has been destroyed by the Qur’an itself. It charges something much deeper than textual corruption. We are talking about corruption of in the oral process before it even becomes written text.
“Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:” This is from Allah,” to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.” (Qur’an 2:79)
Note the text above is not talking about people editing a book. It is stating that the very things they are writing themselves are a fabrication! Not that they had something in hand and started editing and omitting. It is deeper than that!
The Qur’an has no qualms about the fact that what Christians and Jews call sacred scriptures can have some truth in them. However, it has never endorsed their sacred text wholesale.
It is not possible to do so because Jews and Christians have internal disputes about what their sacred canon consist of. The Qur’an never settles these disputes between them.
“But why do they come to you for judgment when they have the Torah containing Allah’s judgment, then they turn away after all? They are not believers.” (Qur’an 5:43)
“And let the People of the Gospel(ahlu l’injili) judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.” (Qur’an 5:47)
Prima Quran 