“Muhammed is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets, and Allah is ever Aware of all things.” (Qur’an 33:40)
“Blessed is He who has revealed the criteria (for discerning truth from falsehood) to His servant so that He could warn all beings.” (Qur’an 25:1)
﷽
All such articles related to this subject will be found here:
This is not an aqidah point for us. Thus, those Muslims who believe in and continue to believe that Jesus (as) will return are not a problem for us.
In regard to the harm or the benefit. The belief that Jesus (as) will return is in the same league with those Muslims who believe in Aliens, Sasquatch or the alleged lost cities of Lemuria and Atlantis. It will only become an issue when those who believe in such things want all others to believe in them as well. When they make it a point of creed or contention.
Of course, no doubt there are innovations introduced to the religion with such beliefs. It certainly undermines the belief that Muhammed (saw) is the last and final messenger. Those who believe that Jesus (as) will return deploy a series of ta’wil (if we want to be nice). copium (if we are being candid).
The idea that Jesus (as) is coming back and Muhammed (saw) is still somehow the last Prophet is usually done via the following three types of novelties (if we want to be nice). bid’ah (innovation if we are being candid).
The first is the idea of the Prophets coming non sequentially. Which has never happened. In order for it not to contradict that the Prophet (saw) is the seal and final Prophet.
The non-sequential argument. Basically, Jesus (as) is A in the diagram below and Muhammed (saw) is B in the diagram below.
It is clear that if A comes before B and comes again after B that B is last in the sequence, and thus the last Prophet. The haqq, the truth about this is so clear that we could ask a small child. Which of the letters appears last? A or B?
The second idea is that a Prophet (saw) left the world with an uncompleted task. In this case, that Prophet would be Jesus -alayi salam.
“And when Jesus, son of Mary, said, “O children of Israel! I am truly Allah’s messenger to you, confirming the Torah which came before me, and giving good news of a messenger after me whose name will be Aḥmad.” Yet when the Prophet came to them with clear proofs, they said, “This is pure magic.” (Qur’an 61:6)
There is nowhere in the Qur’an where Jesus (as) mentions to his people about him returning in the future.
Only in the case of Jesus — alayhi salam is the novelty introduced of a prophet having an unfinished buisness.
The third idea is to strip the prophet from the office of anbiya. In order for it not to contradict that the Prophet (saw) is the seal and final Prophet. No one has the authority to strip a Prophet of Prophethood!
Those who affirm Jesus’ future return cannot, without qualification, say Muhammed (saw) is the last prophet — only the last law-giving prophet.
In effect, Sunnī and Shi’i theology shifted from: “No prophet after Muhammed”
To: “No prophet initiated after Muhammed”
Next, the Sunnī cannot assail the Shi’i belief in the occultation of the Mahdi. Especially if they (Sunnī) believe that Jesus — Alayhi Salam himself is in occultation.
The strength of the belief in the second coming of Christ Jesus is threefold.
It is based upon an erroneous and groundless tafsir of Qur’an 4:157.
Inconsistent application of tawaffa when it relates to Jesus in (Qur’an 5:117 and Qur’an 3.55)
Based upon Hadith reports in which a great many believe are Tawātur and therefore convincing, if not binding, to believe in it altogether.
Lastly, if indeed we are mistaken in this position, we ask Allah (swt) to forgive us. Certainly there is a difference between not believing that Jesus (alayi salam) will return and not believing in him should he return.
Let’s be honest. Who wouldn’t want to see Prophet Jesus (alayi salam) come back and deal justice to the rebellious children of Banī Isrāʾīl?
The erroneous and groundless tafsir of this verse is partially responsible for this belief.
Muhammad al-Tahir ibn Ashur, a famous Maliki scholar who wrote a tafsir of the Qur’an. He believed that Jesus (as) died. We did not hear any takfir made of him or any excommunication made of him.
Ali Erbaş Turkish Islamic scholar and president of directorate of religious affairs -diyanet in Turkey, believes that Jesus (as) is dead. The Presidency of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) is Turkey’s highest official Islamic authority.
“Every soul shall have a taste of death: And only on the Day of Judgment shall you be paid your full recompense. Only he who is saved far from the Fire and admitted to the Garden will have attained the object (of Life): For the life of this world is but goods and chattels of deception.” (Qur’an 3:185)
﷽
The first point to keep in mind while reading this is there is absolutely no definite text anywhere in the Qur’an that says that Jesus will return. Albeit we recognize that there are texts that have been interpreted to be understood as such.
Our position.
We do not believe that Jesus -alayi salam will return. We do not believe that he will return physically, metaphysically, a shadow Jesus, or one in his likeness. Nothing of the kind.
The strength of the belief in the second coming of Christ Jesus is threefold.
It is based upon an erroneous and groundless tafsir of Qur’an 4:157.
Inconsistent application of tawaffa when it relates to Jesus in (Qur’an 5:117 and Qur’an 3.55)
Based upon Hadith reports in which a great many believe to be Tawātur and therefore convincing, if not binding, to believe in it altogether.
We have discussed the first issue here: (No Romans and No Christians!)
The reports that are considered to be Tawātur. We will not address those reports in this article. Insh’Allah, that will be for another entry. We may touch on a few. Suffice it to say that the Ummah iare not in agreement about what is Tawātur.
For example, illustrious scholars of our school such as Shaykh Imam Al-Salimi (r) regarded the evidence for the punishment in the grave to be mutawatir whereas Shaykh Nabhan (r) regarded them as ahad.
So for the Sunni. Seeing Allah (Ruʾyat Allāh) in the hereafter is something which many of them regard as being mutawatir whereas we do not.
For the Shi’i. Ghadir Khumm is considered mutawatir whereas we do not.
The purpose of this article is to outline the reasons from the Qur’an that we believe Jesus (as) has died and that he will not return.
It is important to keep in mind while reading this is there is absolutely no definite text anywhere in the Qur’an that says nobody killed Jesus ever or that he did not die.
“Get you down, with enmity between yourselves. On earth, it will be your dwelling place and your means of livelihood—for a time. Allah said: “Therein shall you live, and therein shall you die, but from it shall you be taken out.” (Qur’an 7:24-25)
“And they say, “There is not but our worldly life; we die and live, and nothing destroys us except time.” And they have of that no knowledge; they are only assuming. And when Our verses are recited to them as clear evidence, their argument is only that they say, “Bring [back] our forefathers, if you should be truthful. ”Say, “ Allah causes you to live, then causes you to die; then He will gather you for the Day of Resurrection, about which there is no doubt, but most of the people do not know.” (Qur’an 45:24-26)
The Qur’an’s universal law: life → death → resurrection
We anchor the discussion in verses like Qur’an 45:24–26 and Qur’an 7:24–25. These establish a non-negotiable human pattern:
Life on earth
Death on earth
Resurrection from earth
This is presented as a universal sunnah, from Adam (as) onward, without exception.
No verse ever states:
A prophet bypasses death
A prophet lives bodily in heaven
A prophet returns after death to resume earthly legislation
Any claim of exception must be explicit in the Qur’an. It is not.
This has been the case from the time of Adam (as) and his descendants for every human being until today, without exception.
If anyone tries to counter by saying that Christ Jesus (as) is still living on Earth just in one of the seven heavens, then we have the right to ask them. “When it says that Allah (swt) took him to himself do any of you believe that Allah (swt) is one of the seven heavens?”
And He has made me blessed wherever I am and has enjoined up me prayer and zakah as long as I remain alive.” (Qur’an 19:31)
What kind of embellished claims is one going to make about Jesus (as) giving zakat in the heavens?
Does Rafaʿa mean bodily ascent in the Qur’an?
“Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.“(Qur’an 4:158)
rafaʿahu is the Arabic used here.
“And mention Idrīs in the Book, surely he was a truthful man, a Prophet. And We elevated him to an honourable status.” (Qur’an 19:57-58)
warafa’nahu – is the Arabic used here.
The comparison with Idrīs is devastating to the “bodily ascension” claim.
Qur’an 4:158 (Jesus): rafaʿahu Allāhu ilayhi
Qur’an 19:57 (Idrīs): rafaʿnāhu makānan ʿaliyyā
What happened to Idris?
So, now taking the example of Idrīs, commonly identified as Enoch [Akhnukh] in the Judeo-Christian tradition, one should ask the scholars that they trust, what happened to Idrīs ? Where is he now? If you believe that Jesus is alive bodily in heaven based upon your understanding of that verb, then what about Enoch?
We would invite you, dear reader, to look at the various views they have on this matter here:
The hadiths they quote about the Blessed Messenger (saw) meeting Idrīs in heaven does nothing to establish that Idrīs died. Just like they would argue that the Blessed Messenger (saw) meeting Jesus in heaven does nothing to establish that Jesus died.
A similar belief is found here:
“By faith, Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.” For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. ” (Hebrews 11:5)
“Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more because God took him away.” (Genesis 5:24)
Now there are three things we can do with this verb form – rafaʿah
1)Apply it consistently in saying that Jesus and Idrīs were both raised in honor and status by Allah [swt]. This is sensible.
2)Apply it consistently in saying that Jesus and Idrīs are both bodily alive in heaven. Neither has yet to die. Yet the question then becomes :why isn’t Idrīs coming back to aid the Muslims? If Jesus is 2000 years of age, Idrīs has to be thousands of years older.
3)Apply it inconsistently and have it mean one thing to Jesus which has never been used in any other instance and have it mean something else to Idrīs.
In every Qur’anic usage, rafaʿa means:
Raising in rank
Raising in honor
Raising in status
Never:
Spatial relocation to heaven
Suspension of death
Immortality
If one insists Jesus was bodily raised:
Consistency demands Idrīs is too.
Yet no coherent doctrine exists for Idrīs’ return.
Inconsistent special pleading (what actually happened)
Qur’an 3:55 only makes sense if Jesus has died
“Allah said, O Jesus, I shall cause you to die and will raise you up to Me and shall purify you of the ungrateful, disbelieving people, and shall place those who follow you above those who deny the truth, until the Day of Judgement; then to Me shall all return and I will judge between you regarding your disputes.” (Qur’an 3:55)
Four points to note here:
a. Allah [swt] is the one who causes Jesus to die and takes his life.
b. That Allah will raise Jesus up to him.
c. That Allah will purify Jesus.
d. That to Allah shall all return [not just Jesus].
Point A Allah [swt] causes Jesus to die and takes his life.
“His is the dominion of the heavens and earth. He gives life and causes death, and He is over all things competent.” (Qur’an 57:2)
The verb tawaffā (verbal noun: tawaffī) seems to cause a great deal of needless distress among Muslim exegetes. Why is this so?
Yet the Qur’an itself offers no cause for confusion. Tawaffā appears in twenty-five passages in the Qur’an, and twice in relation to Christ Jesus (Q 5:117 and Q 3.55).
For twenty-three of those passages the Muslim commentators generally follow the standard definition of this term, that is that Allah (swt) separates the soul from the body or makes someone die.
Think about it. For those passages that are not tied into ahadith about Jesus(as) coming back, they are translated and understood as per usual.
This is sufficient evidence that Jesus is dead. It is clear.
In the above article we have demonstrably shown that if it was not for these oral traditions Muslim exegetes would not argue the way they do at all.
So keep in mind that the interpretation of the verses that clearly say that Jesus died is influenced by ‘the tradition‘.
Point B Allah will raise Jesus up to him.
This is exactly what will eventually happen to everyone.
It does not indicate a spatial location.
For example:
“And he said: Lo! I am going to my Lord Who will guide me.”(Qur’an 37:99)
Ibrahim(as) says, I am going to my Lord. Did he mean from place to place? No.
Another example:
“Behold,” the angels told Mary, “Allah has given you the glad news of the coming birth of a son whom He calls His Word, whose name will be Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, who will be a man of honor in this life and the life to come, and who will be one of the ones nearest to Allah.” (Qur’an 3:45)
Can it be argued that there ever was a time in which Jesus was not ‘near to Allah‘?
In fact, Ibn Taymiyyah used Qur’an 3:55 to try and say that Allah (swt) has a location. This was responded to by Ibn Jahbal Al-Kilabi
“Perhaps he believes that elevation (al-raf’) can only be in the upward direction? If this is what occurred to him, then this, also, is inconceivable except in corporeal and dimensional terms. If he holds other than that, then his inference is not on a literal basis at all. If he actually asserts corporeality and dimensionality, then there is no need to point out his error. Perhaps he never heard of elevation being used in the sense of rank and the obtainment of status in the language of the Arabs and in common usage. Perhaps he never heard the phrase “Allah raised So-and-so’s state.”
Source: (The Refutation of Him Who Attributes Direction to Allah translated by Gibril Fouad Haddad on page 178)
Point C that Allah [swt] will purify Jesus.
What would Allah (swt) need to purify Jesus of? You mean Allah(swt)hasn’t already purified Jesus and cleared him of that which was said about him?
That line of thinking makes absolutely no sense, especially if the following conversation is taking place after some second coming:
“Allah said, O Jesus, I shall cause you to die and will raise you up to Me and shall purify you of the ungrateful, disbelieving people, and shall place those who follow you above those who deny the truth, until the Day of Judgement; then to Me shall all return and I will judge between you regarding your disputes.” (Qur’an 3:55)
The very presence of Jesus creates a bizarre redundant time paradox.
Think about it.
Look at the verse again: Imagine that Allah (swt) is saying this to Jesus, who came down from the skies, fought the Dajjal, got married and died.
Allah said, O Jesus, I shall cause you to die and will raise you up to Me and shall purify you of the ungrateful, disbelieving people, and shall place those who follow you above those who deny the truth, until the Day of Judgement; then to Me shall all return and I will judge between you regarding your disputes.”
If Jesus is alive in the heavens,why is he not aware of this already?
Why is he not aware that Allah (swt) has already cleared him of falsehood by the Qur’an?
Even if he wasn’t aware after 2000 plus years, then surely he would have access to the Qur’an when he returned to Earth, and he could read the text that had already cleared him? After all, he gets married and lives among the Muslims. Muslims recite the Qur’an all the time. Jesus (as) would not hear of these verses?
Whereas if we understand the text as a revelation from Allah (swt) to his Prophet Jesus at the time of his death, it comes across as very comforting and reassuring. That Allah(swt) is the cause of your death (as he is ultimately the cause of all death) and you will return to your lord as the statement: “Indeed, to Allah we belong and to Allah we shall return.” That he [Jesus] will be cleared of false accusations. That his followers will be superior to his detractors on the day of judgment.
“His is the dominion of the heavens and earth. He gives life and causes death, and He is over all things competent.” (Qur’an 57:2)
All of this makes more sense and is in keeping with context. This fits more with the context rather than a redundant revelation to Jesus about something he already knows.
Point D. That to Allah shall all return [not just Jesus].
“Indeed, to Allah we belong and to Allah we shall return.” (Qur’an 2: 156)
Our four-point breakdown (a-d) is key.
“I shall cause you to die (mutawaffīka), raise you to Me, purify you, and judge all disputes.”
This reads naturally as:
A deathbed reassurance
Not a 2,000-year-later reminder of facts Jesus already knows
Otherwise, absurdities arise:
Why tell a living heavenly Jesus he will be purified? He read the Qur’an while on Earth the second time. Why relate redundant information?
Why tell him his followers will be vindicated when the Qur’an already did that?
Under the death reading, the verse is coherent, pastoral, and Qur’anically elegant.
Further proofs:
We have a word already established in the Qur’an, that the word was used of the Blessed Messenger (swt), to show that he was carried up, and that word is ‘asra’.
“Holy is He Who carried ‘asra’ His servant by night from the Holy Mosque (in Makka) to the farther Mosque (in Jerusalem) – whose surroundings We have blessed – that We might show him some of Our signs. Indeed He alone is All-Hearing, All-Seeing.” (Qur’an 17:1)
Qur’an 5:75 and Qur’an 3:144 destroy the “exception” theory.
“The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had already passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!” (Qur’an 5:75)
This text is in reference to the prophet ‘Isa, Christ—Jesus. If you read this text, it does not occur in your mind to think that Moses, David, and Solomon are alive. You have no reason to think that.
There is no reason to believe that Idrīs, commonly identified as Enoch [Akhnukh] in the Judeo-Christian tradition, is alive.
There is no reason to believe that Khidr has been alive since the time of Moses. The above text indicates the opposite of it. That is to say that Jesus is not divine. Thus, one should expect him to pass away like those before have.
However, if Jesus did not pass away like those before him, then perhaps the people of that time have credible evidence to suggest divine-like qualities.
“And Muhammed is no more than a messenger; the messengers have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed, will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels! He will by no means do harm to Allah in the least and Allah will reward the grateful”. (Qur’an 3:144)
This same text that is used of Jesus above is also used of the Blessed Messenger (swt).
In fact, if Jesus had not already passed away, this text would make little to no sense. It could be objected that, ‘Jesus, Khidr, and Idrīs are still alive; and we expect the same for Muhammed‘.
Why would the All-Wise Creator open himself up to such an obvious counter-argument?
If an objection is raised that this means ‘some prophets and not all prophets’, the text would lose the thrust of its argument. “is no more than a messenger.”
How does it argue that he is no more than a messenger? It does this by asserting the fact that those before him have died.
“The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him.” (Qur’an 5:75)
In fact, if those before him have not died, then it can be argued that they [Khidr, Idrīs, and Jesus] are something other than just prophets.
These verses argue against divinization by stressing mortality:
“Messengers before him passed away”
“Muhammed is no more than a messenger…”
The force of the argument collapses if:
Jesus
Idrīs
Khidr
are secretly alive somewhere.
If exceptions existed, opponents could reply: “Some messengers don’t die.”
Yet the Qur’an never allows that escape.
The Seal of the Prophets (33:40) excludes a returning prophet.
“Muhammed is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets, and Allah is ever Aware of all things.” (Qur’an 33:40)
wakhatama l-nabiyina This seal is a barrier over which nothing can penetrate or go beyond. The term alone completely turns to ash any argument that prophets come non-sequentially.
The non-sequential argument is used by the ‘Qadiani Ahmadiyya’ as well as Sunni Muslims.
Not only that, but all messengers were prophets, but not all prophets were messengers. If the term used here was messenger, then one could have scope to argue that more prophets would come. However, as the term used here is prophet, it is inclusive and final.
Not only this, but often the crucial statement ‘not the father of any man among you‘is overlooked.
There are many Father-Son combo prophets that have come and gone. Abraham was the father of Ishmael and Isaac. Isaac was the father of Jacob. Nathan was the father of David and David was the father of Solomon.
Even though being a son of a Prophet does not guarantee that one will become a prophet. An example of this is Adam’s son Cain.
However, the fact that the Blessed Messenger (swt)has not left behind any sons and the phrase ‘not the father of any man among you‘ make it abundantly clear that he (swt) is the last.
The Blessed Messenger (swt) message is not meant for one tribe or nation but for the whole of mankind. His message is universal in scope.
“Blessed is He who has revealed the criteria (for discerning truth from falsehood) to His servant so that He could warn all beings.” (Qur’an 25:1)
Verses 33:40 and 25:1 form a powerful one-two combination that knocks out any concept or idea that any prophet will come after the Blessed Messenger (swt). This includes the prophet Jesus or any misguided sects that have claimed prophets after the Blessed Messenger (saw).
Khatam al-nabiyyīn is final, inclusive, and absolute
A returning prophet who:
Rules
Judges
Abrogates law
Compels belief
is not functionally different from a new prophet.
A prophet returning after finality voids finality.
That is why:
Qādiyānī claims
Sunni second-coming claims
Both struggle here, despite opposing each other.
There are three types of Bid’ah introduced in the belief in the second coming of Jesus (as)
The idea that a Prophet (saw) left the world with an uncompleted task.
Stripping a Prophet from the office of anbiya.In order for it not to contradict that the Prophet (saw) is the seal and final Prophet. No one has the authority to strip a Prophet of Prophethood!
The idea of the Prophets coming non sequentially. Which has never happened. In order for it not to contradict that the Prophet (saw) is the seal and final Prophet.
A cursory look at some of the hadith on the matter.
Hadith that support the Ibadi position.
Although this is a subject for another article. We will take a cursory look at some hadith on the matter that supports our position.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “My similitude, in comparison with the other prophets before me, is that of a man who has built a house nicely and beautifully, except for a place of one brick in a corner. The people go about it and wonder at its beauty, but say: ‘Would that this brick be put in its place!’ So I am that brick, and I am the last of the Prophets.”
* Note* that the Blessed Messenger (saw) is the completion of the house and the final brick. That would not be so if Jesus (as) was to come again in the future. In fact, if any other Prophet were to come, then the Blessed Messenger (saw) would not be that final brick. More work would need to be done.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (saw) said, “The Israelis used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number.” The people asked, “O Allah’s Messenger (saw)! What do you order us (to do)?” He said, “Obey the one who will be given the pledge of allegiance first. Fulfil their (i.e. the Caliphs) rights, for Allah will ask them about (any shortcoming) in ruling those Allah has put under their guardianship.”
Thawban narrated that the Messenger of Allah(saw) said:
“The Hour shall not be established until tribes of my Ummah unite with the idolaters, and until they worship idols. And indeed there shall be thirty imposters in my Ummah, each of them claiming that he is a Prophet. And I am the last of the Prophets, there is no Prophet after me.”
Allah’s Messenger (saw) set out for Tabuk, appointing Ali as his deputy (in Medina) Ali said, “Do you want to leave me with the children and women?” The Prophet (saw) said, “Will you not be pleasedthat you will be to me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me.”
Hadith that support the opposition and oppose the Qur’an.
The day of judgement was already supposed to have happened.
‘A’isha reported that when the desert Arabs came to Allah’s Messenger (saw they asked about the Last Hour as to when that would come. And he looked towards the youngest amongst them and said:
If he lives, he would not grow very old that he would find your Last Hour coming to you (he would see you dying).
First. This is a flat contradiction of the Qur’an.
“They ask you regarding the Hour, “When will it be?” Say, “That knowledge is only with my Lord. He alone will reveal it when the time comes. It is too tremendous for the heavens and the earth and will only take you by surprise.” They ask you as if you had full knowledge of it. Say, “That knowledge is only with Allah, but most people do not know.” (Qur’an 7:187)
Narrated Abu Hurayrah:
The Prophet (saw) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (as). He will descend (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head, even though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.
So, according to the above hadith, Jesus abolished the following:
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah nor in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.” (Qur’an 9:29)
“And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed – all of them entirely. Then, [O Muhammed], would you compel the people in order that they become believers?” (Qur’an 10:99)
There are so many teachings of the Qur’an that Jesus would be abrogating if we were to believe the above hadith.
The hadith indicates a change in Allah (swt) because the Qur’an teaches that Allah [saw]doesn’t want people to be compelled to believe and yet sends Jesus to compel people to believe. It is rejected. It is totally rejected.
There are other hadiths in which the Muslims are supposed to take these as if they are revelations, they contain patently false information.
For example:
Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani made a calculation that the time of the Ummah should have already come and gone:
Narrated `Abdullah bin `Umar:
I heard Allah’s Messenger (saw) while he was standing on the pulpit, saying, “The remaining period of your stay (on the earth), in comparison to the nations before you, is like the period between the `Asr prayer and sunset. The people of the Torah were given the Torah, and they acted upon it till midday, and then they were worn out and were given for their labor, one Qirat each. Then the people of the Gospel were given the Gospel,and they acted upon it till the time of the `Asr prayer, and then they were worn out and were given (for their labor), one Qirat each. Then you people were given the Qur’an and you acted upon it till sunset and so you were given two Qirats each (double the reward of the previous nations).” Then the people of the Torah said, ‘O our Lord! These people have done a little labor (much less than we) but have taken a greater reward.’ Allah said, ‘Have I withheld anything from your reward?’ They said, ‘No.’ Then Allah said, ‘That is My Favor which I bestow on whom I wish.’ “
Hafiz Ibn al-Hajr al-Asqalani says in his Fath al-Bari, (in vol.4, the book of hijara, page 448-449) commenting on these two narrations: “and it is evident ( from these stated narrations) that the lasting of this Islamic nation is somewhat a thousand years, this is because the age of the Jewish nation is equivalent to that of the time periods of the Christian and Muslim ages combined, and the people of transmission (ahl an naql) have agreed that the period of the Jews till the advent of Allah’s final Apostle Muhammad was more than 2000 years, and the span of the age of the Christians was 600 years from them. And also this narration points the fact about how little of the age of this world has remained.”
Torah time is = to Injil time + Qur’an time.
Torah time =2000 years.
Torah time = 2000 years -600 years = (1400) From Moses to Jesus.
Let us be generous and add 100 years.
The time of this ummah of the Blessed Messenger (saw) is 1500–600, which means only 900 years, and now we are in 1441.
When Muslims reached the 1,000th year, they thought they were nearing the end because of these Sahih ahadith which indicated we would have half the time the Jewish nation had, but Imam as-Suyuti [the author of the Tafsir al jalalayn] who was born in the 10th century and lived into the 11th century was alive during these times, he wrote a fatwa [legal ruling] to reassure Muslims, in which he said it was supposed to be 1000 years, but there is a dua of Rasul Allah in which he supplicates Allah to give his Ummah another half a day and the companions asked the prophet how long is half a day, and he answered 500 years. So the imam said the life of this Ummah is 1,500 years.
Imam as Suyuti mentions in his book: “Risalah Al-Kashf ‘An Mujawazt Hadeedth ul Ummah Al Alf” ”, or “Treatise on Revealing of the Proceeding of this Nation Beyond the Thousand,” page 206 about the advent of the Mahdi that:
“From what the narrations reveal is that the age of this ummah extends beyond a thousand, but it doesn’t exceed in increase another 500 in actuality beyond this thousand.”
So, if you do the math, 1500-1441=59 years left. So in these next 59 years, according to them, we should see this Mahdi, the coming of Jesus, the Gog and Magog causing havoc on the Earth, the Sun rising in the West.
Keep in mind according to the above hadith: “He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years, and then he will die.” 59-40=19. So, accordingly, Jesus will show up in the year 2039.
So what is going to happen to these Muslims who, after 59 years have passed and nothing of the sort has happened? Will they apostate from the faith? Will they leave the deen?
Ya Allah (saw) we sincerely hope not. wehope that they realize that just because certain interpretations and understandings of Islam are wrong, it does not mean that Islam is wrong.
“And when Allah will say: O Jesus, son of Mary! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah, he will say: Glory be to You, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, You would indeed have known it; You know what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in your mind, surely you are the great Knower of the unseen things. I did not say anything to them except what you commanded me with: That worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness over them as long as I was among them, but when you caused me to die (Arabic: Tawafaytani), you were the watcher to them, and you are witness of all things.”(Qur’an 5:116-117)
There are several things to take from the above passage:
1) This dialogue takes place on the Day of Judgment, where Prophet Jesus suggests that he has no knowledge of what has happened since his demise on Earth and after his ministry ended. “I was a witness to them as long as I was among them.”
2) From the discussion, it is clear that Prophet Jesus only came to Earth once, acting as a witness to his people. If indeed there was a ‘second coming’ before the Day of Judgment, he would have full knowledge of what had happened since his first departure. After all, he abolished the Jizya and forced the Christians and Jews to convert to Islam. This conversation with Allah (swt) would make little to no sense.
3) For the sake of the argument, let us imagine that those hadith that are claimed to have been spoken by the Blessed Prophet (saw) were true for a moment. So now Jesus (as) comes back and everyone becomes a Muslim. The Dajjal is defeated. Jesus (as) gets married. Then Allah (swt) causes Jesus (as) to die.
Then we have Jesus (as) saying after he dies to Allah (swt) “I was a witness to them as long as I was among them, but when you caused me to die, you were the watcher over them, and you are witness of all things.”
A rather bizarre understanding, it seems.
Especially, if we take the following text into consideration: “And there is none from the People of the Scripture but that he will surely believe in Jesus before his death.” (Qur’an 4:159)
A rather bizarre situation the ‘traditional‘ and ‘dominant‘ position leaves us in.”
Jesus says on the Day of Judgment:
“I was a witness to them as long as I was among them, but when You caused me to die (tawaffaytanī), You were the Watcher over them.”
This statement is incompatible with:
A second earthly mission
A global enforcement of Islam
A forty-year reign
If such events occurred, Jesus could not truthfully say this.
The verse only works if:
Jesus lived once
Died once
And never returned
Shaykh Abdullah As Salmi (h) says:
“Let it be known that the Prophet has no Prophet after him. What people narrate that Christ will descend has not been heard before.” -meaning this is something not grounded in strong evidence.
Shaykh Nasser bin Abi Nabhan (h) says:
“Some people narrate that Allah sends the Mahdi and Anti-Christ appears. They also believe that Christ descends. All of this is a far cry from the truth. What we know is that Jesus is dead.”
Ibadi position: historically sober, Qur’an-first
Our citations from Ibadi scholars reflect a methodological clarity:
No doctrine without Qur’anic certainty
No speculative eschatology overriding revelation
No imported Judeo-Christian motifs
This is not “denialism.”
It is discipline.
“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)
“O Jesus, the son of Mary! Recount my favour to you and to your mother. Behold! I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit so that you would speak to people in childhood and in maturity.” (Qur’an 110)
“To Jesus the son of Mary, We gave clear signs, and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit .” (Quran 2:253)
“We gave Jesus the son of Mary clear signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit .” (Qur’an 2:87)
“And say, “Praise to Allah, who has not taken a son and has had no partner in His dominion and has no need of a protector out of weakness; and glorify Him with great glorification.” (Qur’an 17:111)
Here Jesus (as) is contrasted with Allah (swt).
Jesus needs to be strengthened with the Holy Spirit. Whereas Allah (swt) has no need of any protector. In fact, Allah (swt) emphasizes that the one who needs a protector is due to some inherent need.
“An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him.” (Luke 22:43)
Three points:
A) If the angel was there to strengthen Jesus’ human nature, what was deficient about the presence of Almighty God himself in Jesus that couldn’t give Jesus that strength? An angel is redundant.
B) If the angel was there to strengthen Jesus’ divine nature, that too does not make any sense. How does an angel strengthen God?
C) If the angel was there to strengthen the God-Man -then this leads us back to point A.
This is a dangerous concept because if Jesus could not turn to the Divine within himself which we are told the ‘whole fullness of godhead‘ dwells, then what precedent does this set for the rest of humanity?
Some people will start to call upon angels rather than God. This is not acceptable. What also makes the above text doubly redundant is that Jesus is already filled with the Holy Spirit.
“And the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him.” (Luke 3:23)
Imagine if you will if it said that the ‘Father descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him’. Why would the Holy Spirit whom we presume to be the divine, in essence, need to descend upon the son whom we presume to be divine in nature? If Jesus has the ‘fullness of the godhead’ which means the complete presence of the hypostatic union why the need for the Holy Spirit?
“And Jesus being full of the Holy Spirit returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness.” (Luke 4:1)
Imagine if you would if the text said, ‘being full of the Father returned from the Jordan’. What kind of understanding is this? Is God filled with God?
It looks as if Jesus is being assisted by an agent known as the Holy Spirit.
“How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil because God was with him.” (Acts 10:38)
“You men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know.” (Acts 2:22)
Is there power in the name of Jesus? Many Christians believe that there is power in the name of Jesus. They also falsely assume that the name of God is Jesus.
God has attributes that are possessed at all times. God is not God without his attributes. Did Jesus have these attributes at all times?
Christians often tell us that their concept is that Jesus is the ‘Godman’. The problem with this is not that Jesus ‘deity‘ empowers his humanity to do amazing feats like walking on water and so forth. The problem is that Jesus’ humanity overcomes his ‘deity‘ time and time again. The flesh can never overpower the divine might of God.
Example #1. Infinitude. God is self-existent. Is Jesus?
Allah in the Qur’an is self-existent and ever-living.
“Allah is that upon which all things are dependent, while Allah is dependent upon nothing.” (Qur’an 112:2)
“And rely upon the Ever-Living who does not die, and exalt His praise. And sufficient is He to be, with the sins of His servants, Acquainted -” (Quran 25:580)
However, Jesus is not self-sufficient.
“I live by the father.” (John 6:57)
Example #2. Unlimited Power. Allah is All-power in the Qur’an.
“Blessed be He in Whose hands is Dominion, and He over all things has power.” (Qur’an 67:1)
However, Jesus is not all-powerful.
“The Son can do nothing of himself…” (John 5:19)
Now Christians will obviously try and explain this away by saying that Jesus voluntarily lays aside some of these prerogatives of divinity. In accordance with their understanding of (Philippians 2:6-7).
Now there are huge theological problems with this which we will come back to insh’Allah. However, Christian theology opens itself up to enormous theological conundrums.
If God, in any manifestation of the third of the three, can, “lay aside divine prerogatives”, this means that God theoretically could “lay aside” divine prerogatives of being truthful, or of being just. This can mean that it could be deceitful or unjust — authubillah min dhalik (We seek protection in Allah from these thoughts).
Now there is clear subordination in John 5:19 as well.
“Ontological equality, but economic subordination,” in other words, “equal in being, but subordinate in role.”
Source: (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994), Chapter 14 The Trinity, pp. 251-252.)
Interestingly, he even quotes from A.H Strong who says:
“We frankly recognize an eternal subordination of Christ to the Father, but we maintain at the same time that this subordination is a subordination of order, office, and operation, not a subordination of essence.”
Whatever helps our Christian friends sleep well at night.
Example#3. Omniscient, Infinite Knowledge.
Allah is All-knowing in the Qur’an.
“It is He Who created for you all things that are on earth; moreover, His design comprehended the heavens, for HE gave order and perfection to the seven firmaments; and of all things, He has perfect knowledge.” (Qur’an 2:29)
However, Jesus is not all-knowing.
“But of that hour no man knows, no not the angels which are in heaven, neither the son, But the Father.” (Mark 13:32)
Note: Jesus gives priority to the angels because they are in heaven, and he is on earth.
Is Jesus still God’s son after the resurrection? Christians will say yes. So this verse still applies to him.
Not only that, but if Jesus’ prayer was answered in John 17:5 “Give me the glory that I had with you before,” This would mean he would fully be in that essence; however, his knowledge is obviously not the same in essence as the Father. The Father is keeping secrets from the person of the Son. Their knowledge is not the same in essence.
Is God a man or the son of man? Can we apply these terms to God?
“God is not a man, that he should lie, nor the son of man that he should repent.” (Numbers 23:19)
“Whom do men say that I, the son of man, am?” (Matthew 16:13)
Note: Jesus used the term ‘son of man’ for himself. Also, Jesus was a man appointed by God. Since God is not a man or the son of man, then Jesus is not God.
God does not have the ability to lie or to repent. So this also raises the questions: Did Jesus have the capacity to lie or to repent? If he didn’t, was he ever really truly fully man?
Further irrefutable proof Jesus was only a mortal human being.
“And as Peter was coming in ,Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet and worshiped him, but Peter took him up saying, stand up, “I myself also am a man (anthropos).” (Acts 10:25-26)
There above the Greek word for man is Anthropos.
Question: What does the word Anthropos mean?
Answer: It means a mortal human being, full man. It distinguishes man from the animal kingdom on one hand and distinguishes man from a deity and divine essence on the other.
Anthropos is where we get the word anthropology, which means the study of man.
Whereas Theos is where we get the word Theology, which means the study of God.
“You who are Israelites, hear these words, Jesus the Nazorean was a man(anthropos) commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.” (Acts 2:22)
“I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst” (Hosea 11:9)
“But now you seek to kill me, a man (anthropos) who has told you the truth which I heard from.” (John 8:40)
Here Jesus applied a term to himself that allows therein no allowance for deity or terminology, such as the ‘God-Man.’ Jesus stresses here that he is a mortal human being without a dual nature. Never in Greek literature has the term anthropos come to mean God, or ‘God-Man’. Anthropos—by its definition, is to be without a dual nature.
The Tri-theist will tell you that Jesus is fully God and full man. Now God, being fully deity for the sake of argument, could come in the guise of a man. Example history is replete with Hercules, Zeus, Aphrodite, Amen-Ra, and the plethora of other gods and goddesses that legend say came in the form of human beings. However, a person can not be fully man and also be fully deity, because to be fully man (anthropos) is not to be divine.
Now we could stop our discussion here in light of what Jesus said about being anthropos. There is no one in Christianity that can stand up to that argument. Sure a person can bring a slew of proof texts (John 1:1, John 10:30, John 8:58, John 20:28, Colossians 2:9, Titus 2:13) but each one of those texts will fundamentally contradict John 8:40.
We could take another approach with Christians and ask:
Do Christians really believe that Jesus was ever truly a human being?
The Position of the Qur’an.
“The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; messengers before him had indeed passed away. And his mother was a truthful woman. They both used to eat food. See how We make the message clear to them! Then behold, how they are turned away!” (Qur’an chapter 5:75)
“I say this because many deceivers have gone out into the world. They deny that Jesus Christ came in a real body. Such a person is a deceiver and an antichrist.” (2 John 1:7 New Living Translation)
The above argument from the Qur’an is not an argument against the deity of Christ per se. Rather, it can be argued that this text of the Qur’an is directed towards those who took the first steps in making Jesus a deity: namely the docetists or a group of Christians that held the belief in docetism.
Question: What is docetism? Answer: The idea that Jesus did not come in the flesh or that Jesus the son of Mary was simply a spirit or apparition.
Docetism etymologically from the Greek verb dokeo, which means: “to seem, to appear, to be.”
In fact, when we Muslims engage Christians in debates, we point to the fact that he was simply anthropos (a mortal human being).
Jesus is reported to have said, “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. ” (Mark 7:7)
“I do not accept human praise. Moreover, I know that you do not have the love of God in you.” (John 5:41)
There is an ample amount of text in the New Testament that shows that Jesus was not really human but simply appeared human, took on human form, or was a glorified apparition. If a person doesn’t see the theological wrangling going on in the following text, then something is wrong.
Take, for example, 1 Timothy 3:16
“Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He [a]APPEARED in a body [b] was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.”
Footnotes:
Some manuscripts God
Or in the flesh
“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)
Jesus ‘beams down’ like in Star Trek! “The Word became Flesh“
In the Gospel of John, there is no virgin birth narrative.
John 3:16 which used to be translated as ‘Gave his only-begotten son’, has now been cast aside for the more famous ‘only unique’, ‘only son’, ‘only of his kind” etc. Begotten would imply that Jesus came into existence and for this writer that is simply not a given.
Also, note that there is no mention of Mary in the Gospel, according to John. It is simply some woman who is identified as Jesus’ mother. As if Jesus could have been adopted. Please see John 2:4 and John 19:25
So this writer has Jesus simply beam down or ‘materialize‘ like Captain Kirk on Star Trek.
What this text is saying is that Jesus took on the form of a human being. Just like the Holy Spirit took on the form of a dove. It doesn’t literally mean that the Holy Spirit incarnated as a dove or otherwise, the Christians would believe in two incarnations.
It simply means that the Holy Spirit was “dokeo” meaning it seemed to be, supposed to be, or appeared to be.
For example, one can look at Philippians 2:6 for further collaboration. Philippians 2:6-7 is a passage that many Christian scholars believe is likely a fragment of an early Christian hymn. These early Christians had docetic tendencies and views. They held that Jesus was not really in the flesh like other human beings, but only seemed, or appeared to have a body or a form. The form he had was purely spiritual.
“Instead, he emptied himself by taking on the form(morphe) of a servant, by becoming like other humans, by having a human appearance.” (Philippians 2:7)
Other Christians have quite a different interpretation of Philippians 2:7. They imagine the Son playing the role of Clarke Kent from Superman 2 where he powers down in the crystal chamber.
“Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage. Instead, he emptied himself (kenosis) by taking on the form(morphe) of a servant, by becoming like other humans, by having a human appearance.” (Philippians 2:7)
So what is this Kenosis? What did he empty himself of? If they say he emptied himself of divine attributes, then he is no longer God. God is not God without his attributes.
Kenosis means: (to empty, render void, perceived as valueless, deprived of content)
The other issue this brings up is the subordination doctrine. As mentioned earlier, Christians like to coin theological terminology that they feel helps them escape from difficult issues. Like the idea of their being subordination in the economy of the Trinity.
The text in Philippians 2:7 is also in direct contradiction to the text of Colossians 2:9 which states:
“For in Christ, all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form.”
You can see my other entry where I talk about if Christians believe in two incarnations: Did God become a dove?
“For in Christ, all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9)
Yet, we are told in Luke 3:22
“And the Holy Ghost descended in bodily form like a dove upon him and a voice came from heaven which said,” You are my beloved Son in you, I am well pleased.”
Docetic Christians would have told us that they do not believe in two incarnations. That the Holy Spirit did not really become a bird/dove. Simply that it took on a bodily form. In the exact same way as Colossians 2:9 mentions a bodily form.
Original Word: εἶδος Transliteration: eidos
Which means: appearance, fashion, shape, sight. From eido a view, i.e. Form (literally or figuratively) — appearance, fashion, shape, sight.
It’s amazing that the early Tri-theist Christians burned the writings of Marcion’s Christian faction. He is such an interesting person. Marcion, according to many, was an advocate of Paul, and he rejected the Old Testament, only accepting certain books that now comprise the 22/27 books of the New Testament depending upon the faction of Christianity you belong to.
Marcion formed the first Christian canon of the New Testament. Interestingly, we do not have the writings of Marcion. We only know about Marcion through his opponents. Guess we all know how well our opponents can represent our views (something us Ibadis know too well).
Now what most Christian scholars hide from the masses is the fact that the early Christians BURNED Marcion’s writings. You will also hear an interesting tale that he did a cut-and-paste job with the Gospel of Luke.
Especially interesting to us Muslims is the controversy regarding Marcion and the ‘Gospel according to Luke‘.
Take for example the controversy around the following text in the Gospel of Luke. This brings us back full circle to the beginning of this article.
“43An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him.44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.[a]
a]
Footnotes:
Luke 22:44 Some early manuscripts do not have verses 43 and 44.
Now put your detective hat on for a moment. If I held the position that Jesus was God but only appeared to be a human being ,why would the text above be problematic? Does the text above support that Jesus was also fully human or that he was simply God alone?
Once you ponder over this you will be able to see why “some early manuscripts do not have verses 43 and 44.”
“While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” (Luke 24:36)
“37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” (Luke 24:37-39)
“40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43, and he took it and ate it in their presence. (Luke 24:40-43)
“44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” (Luke 24:44)
Here is a link to an interesting discussion on Hort’s theory of Non-Interpolation, and it’s influence on the English version of the New Testament text here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/noninterp.html
Here is some of the discussion on verse 40 above.
“Luke 24:40. Was ver. 40 omitted by certain Western witnesses (D ita,b,d,e,ff2,l,r1 syrc,s) because it seemed superfluous after ver. 39? Or is it a gloss introduced by copyists in all other witnesses from Jn 20.20, with a necessary adaptation (the passage in John refers to Jesus’ hands and side; this passage refers to his hands and feet)? A minority of the Committee preferred to omit the verse as an interpolation (see the Note following 24.53); the majority, however, was of the opinion that, had the passage been interpolated from the Johannine account, copyists would probably have left some trace of its origin by retaining τὴν πλευράν in place of τοὺς πόδας (either here only, or in ver. 39 also). [p. 187]”
Now someone would probably counter that Luke 24 does a great job of countering the Christian docetic position based upon two points.
1) People cannot touch a glorified body, apparition, form, etc. 2) People cannot hold onto a glorified body, apparition, form, etc.
Now, this text is very tricky because one cannot have their cake and eat it too. Obviously, according to Christians today, they do believe that Jesus was a glorified body (a body that had nail prints in it). Not only this but what was the point of eating broiled fish and honeycomb?
Now as for the objections above. We find it strange that people would say you cannot touch a glorified body, or hold onto a being that is merely taking on the form or shape of a body.
Christians also believe that God eats yogurt, drinks milk, and eats roasted meat as well!
“When the food was ready, Abraham took some yogurt and milk and the roasted meat, and he served it to the men. As they ate, Abraham waited on them in the shade of the trees.” (Genesis 18:18)
So Christians do not believe that Jesus is really a human being.
Because to be really a human being is NOT to be God. They do not believe that he was human but simply that God came down and tabernacled among humanity. There has never been a human being in the existence of humankind that was God. If you want to argue that God comes and takes on a form or a shape, drinks milk, and eats fish, honeycombs, yogurt, and roasted meat, fine! However, no one can say that any of those entities or beings were truly human.
“I say this because many deceivers have gone out into the world. They deny that Jesus Christ came in a real body. Such a person is a deceiver and an antichrist.” (2 John 1:7 New Living Translation)
This is why iour contention that the vast majority of Christianity today is Anti-Christ!
Anti is the Greek word which means in place of.
The Christians will claim that they believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man. However, to be fully man is not to be fully God. You can say that a circle can have three sides all you want it does not make it true.
Islam has the truth. We believe that Jesus is the Messiah. He was born of the Virgin Mary (May Allah cover her in mercy) and he is a mortal human being. It is Christian theology that has betrayed the real son of Mary.
This is a reason why the Qur’an above says Mary and Jesus BOTH ate food. The emphasis is that Jesus eats food in the same way that Mary does. He does it for the same reason and purpose. He is really a mortal human being. It is not the way the Christians (who are docetist in disguise) that Jesus eats broiled fish and honeycomb because he is a glorified apparition!
The problem that Islam has with Christians is not only that they claim that Jesus is God. The real problem is that Christians do not believe that Jesus was really a human being; they believe he took on the form of a servant or appeared in the likeness of men.
“I say this because many deceivers have gone out into the world. They deny that Jesus Christ came in a real body. Such a person is a deceiver and an antichrist.” (2 John 1:7 New Living Translation)
It is our hope that the sincere Christian is able to see these theological constructs for what they truly are.
Philosophical objection to the Trinity
The argument from René Descartes
Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am)
The Christian concept of the Trinity does not stand up to the philosophy of René Descartes.
René Descartes speaks of a person as the subject of self-awareness and freedom—in brief, a person as a conscious and autonomous self.
Is God aware of his own existence? Does ‘God the Father’ think? Does ‘God the Son’ think? Does ‘God the Holy Spirit’ think?
If there is only one mind and one self-existence, then God is absolutely one and not tri-unity. If there are three minds and three self-existences, then without doubt trinitarian Christians have slipped into Tri-theism and worship three gods.
Are the Trinitarian Gods one in mind, will, and action? If so, how can this be so? If the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in mind, will, and action, in what sense can they be three persons? If the three act as one and so are one in nature, what room is left to distinguish three persons?
One can slip into talk of three distinct centers of consciousness and decision-making, and an interpretation of the divine persona that abandons monotheism and ends up with three gods in perfect dialogue among themselves.
Such a conception can hardly ward off tri-theism or the idea of three self-sufficient subjects who enjoy a separate existence, always act together as a closely meshed community of divine individuals, but do not constitute one God.
None of the members of the trinity alone are fully God. If the Trinity is to be understood, we have a situation where Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, but none of them on their own are fully God.
Examples of Jesus’ humanity overpowering his ‘deity’.
Does God increase in wisdom?
“For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.” (1 John 3:20)
“And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man.” (Luke 2:52)
We know that God does not increase in wisdom. God is All-Wise.
Does God Sleep?
“Behold, he that keeps Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.” (Psalm 121:4)
“But he (Jesus) was asleep.” (Matthew 8:24)
Can Satan himself tempt God?
“God cannot be tempted with evil.” (James 1:13)
“And when the devil ended all the temptation (of Jesus), he departed from him for a season.” (Luke 4:13)
Prima Qur’an Comment:
Now each of those points brought up above is about Jesus sleeping, increasing in wisdom, and being tempted with evil, we know what our Christian friends will say. That all of this is in regard to the humanity of Jesus. For example, do we sleep, do we have a soul, does our soul sleep?
The Big Theological and Philosophical challenge to Christianity.
Can God Die?
“God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in an unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.”(1 Timothy 6:15-16)
So now who or what died on the double-cross?
Just as God is not tempted, doesn’t increase in knowledge, doesn’t require sleep, God does not die.
God didn’t die. God’s essence did not die. God the Father did not die. God, the Holy Spirit, did not die. God the Son did not die.
That is the end of Christianity. It so frustrates Christians in debates with Muslims that the Christian immediately pushes a panic button and will either introduce a non sequitur, or statements that are not analogous at all.
“Even my Muslim friends don’t believe that death is the cessation of life!”
So the Christian tries a diversion tactic. Say something truthful about your opponent that they are forced to agree with in order to take the tension out of the room.
To our dismay, time and time again, Muslim debaters let Christians off the hook on this.
True, Muslims believe that there is life after death, but the Christian is trying to avoid the subject of death altogether. Muslims also believe that our souls are created; they are not eternal. Muslims believe that we do indeed die.
So that which Christians claim died on the double-cross, was it created or eternal? And notwithstanding the fact that there is life after death, back to the pointed question:
Who or what died on the double-cross?
“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28)
Which also begs the question: what did God really sacrifice?
We can’t say God sacrificed his life because God couldn’t die.
We can’t really say that God sacrificed his son because he got his son back.
We can’t even really say that God sacrificed time, as God exists outside space/time.
Which also still leaves our Christian friends in their sin. All that happened, in reality, was a cosmic charade. In the end, a man was left to suffer. God didn’t partake in any suffering. It was simply flesh that was abandoned on the double-cross.
It says, “About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice,” ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’” (Matthew 27:46)
Jesus is speaking as flesh here. The Father can never abandon the Son because they are co-eternally joined in one essence.
All that was left was flesh, the same flesh that we are told can’t please God.
“Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.” (Romans 8:8)
We will look at the New Testament evidence that overwhelmingly shows that only the Father is God.
Answer: 1 Corinthians 8:6 “But to us, there is one God, the Father.” (Not Trinity, not the son, -The Father.)
“Let us read from Young’s Literal Translation: “For even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven, whether upon earth — as there are gods many and lords many — yet to us [is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] the all things, and we to Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom [are] all things, and we through Him.” (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)
This is very important because of all those Elohim(gods/ which one is truly God? Paul says the FATHER. This verse clearly refutes Christian Tri-theism.
“That the God of our ‘Lord Jesus Christ’, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation.” (Ephesians 1:17)
Who is the God of ‘Lord Jesus Christ’?
“Blessed be the ‘God and Father’of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Peter 1:3)
Who is the God and Father of ‘Lord Jesus Christ’?
“We always give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you.” (1 Colossians 1:3)
“One God and Father of all.” (Ephesians 4:6)
“My Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)
“My Father is greater than all.” (John 10:29)
“Jesus said, touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: But go to my brothers and say unto them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God, and your God.” (John 20:17)
“And surely Allah is My Lord, and your Lord, so worship Him. This is a Straight Path.” (Qur’an 19:36)
Note: Jesus should be ‘fully glorified’ God here, as he is saying these words in his post-resurrected body.
“Have we all not one Father? Has not One God created us?” (Malachi 2:10)
This text is sufficient to put at rest the tired arguments that, because Jesus called God his father, he was making himself equal with God. This is not what Jesus said. This is what some Jews said about Jesus. However, Jesus never makes any claims that the Father belongs exclusively to him. John 20:17 made that abundantly clear to all those who can see.
Jesus also is reported to have told people to pray, “Our Father who is in heaven.”
Now Christians (depending upon if they are Tri-theist as are the ‘Trinitarians’ or if they are Modalistsas are the ‘Oneness Pentecostals’) will try and bring a proof text to support their respective positions to identify Jesus as the Father.
Proof text used by Christians to try and identify Jesus as the Father
#1) The first proof text they try and use is Isaiah 9:6
“For to us, a child is born, to us, a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
Now, more often than not, the only thing that the Tri-theist wants from this passage is that Jesus is called ‘Mighty God’. They do not really want to deal with the fact that it also says this person will be called “Everlasting Father,” because it deals some damage to their doctrine, and gives credence to the Modalism that the ‘Oneness Pentecostals’ believe in. So what they normally do is say these are simply titles but not names of Jesus. Or they represent the realities of Jesus (that the Father is expressed in him) etc.
Because the Trinity doctrine is very explicit that Jesus is not the Father. We are always dismayed by their use of this passage.
Isaiah 7:14 comes to mind where it says,
“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)
Who ever really called him Immanuel? In his lifetime? So we wanted to bring the Isaiah 9:6 passage up because it’s the only passage beside John 10:30 (that we will soon be dealt with) that Christians would try and use to show that Jesus is the Father.
The popular Christian version of Isaiah 9:6 is not even in Septuagint 2.0!
“For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will rest on his shoulders. And he will be called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)
“For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.”(Isaiah 9:6 -The Septuagint 2.0 The Holy Spirit’s Fav Version)
Where are all these other names?
So who is upon the truth? Are Latin Roman Catholics, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox upon guidance for trusting a text that does not make Christological claims about Jesus, such as calling him (Jesus) ‘The Everlasting Father’? Claims that contradict the idea that Jesus is not the Father?
Or are those Protestants who trust in the Masoretic text (although they still give it a Christological bent). Are they upon the truth?
Only one person in the Jewish scriptures is referred to as “mighty god” and his name is Hizkiyyahu or, Hezekiah (mighty god). Jewish names, like many Muslims’ names, are what one may call a theophoric name. The 1st century Christians did not use Isaiah 9:6 for Christological purposes. Latter ones did though. Changing the Hebrew perfect tense to future tense.
#2) The second proof text they try and use is John 10:30
Was Jesus one with the creator in essence or one in submission to the overall divine plan?
“If you be the Christ (Messiah) tell us plainly?” (John 10:24)
” I and my Father are one.” (John 10:30)
Now the Christian tri-theist will tell you this text proves that Jesus is God. However, are they consistent when we point out the following text to them?
“Neither I pray for those alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be ONE; Like you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be ONE in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me. And the glory which you gave me I have given them; that they may be ONE, even as we are ONE.” (John 17:20-22)
You see the Greek word Hen means one in purpose. It does not mean one in essence. Jesus said that the disciples would be one “Even as we are one”.
Think about that. If Jesus meant by saying ‘The Father and I are one‘ that he is in essence God; then this also means the 12 disciples are also in essence, God! So now the tri-theist who believe in three gods dwelling in community together would now have a godhead unity of 15 (inclusive of the 12 disciples). One would hope that common sense coupled with modesty would have kept Christians from going overboard with such conclusions but all we have to do is point out Benny Hinn.
Discussion on Benny Hinn’s theology of John 17:20-22
Little wonder we have world-famous televangelist Benny Hinn running around with his ‘little god‘ theology.
Benny Hinn is getting bolder and bolder these days, telling his followers they are gods and even Christ Jesus. There is no end to Christian blasphemy of Allah (swt).
“When you say I am saved, what are you saying? You are saying, I am a Christian. What does that word mean? It means I’m anointed. You know what the word anointed means? It means Christ. When you say I’m a Christian, you are saying I am Mashiyach in Hebrew. I am a little messiah walking on earth, in other words. That’s a shocking revelation! We are not, we are not, having, we don’t have a part of Him running around in our stomach feeling goosebumps. His spirit and our spirit-man are one, united. There is no separation, it’s impossible. The new creation is created after God in righteousness and true holiness. The new man is after God, like God, Godlike, complete in Christ Jesus, the new creation is just like God. May I say it like this, you are a little god on earth running around.” http://www.cephasministry.com/benny_hinn.html
So, if these Christians are little gods walking around on the Earth, we have the right to ask them if they are false gods or true gods? We will come back to this question.
Say what you want about Benny Hinn, but at least he is interpreting the passage on a more consistent basis than most tri-theist. After all, if the Christian is filled with the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit =God, then the Christian is experiencing their own incarnation of the divine as well!
“Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwell sin you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16)
Conclusion: Only the Father is God. Jesus is not the Father.
We feel the evidence above is abundantly clear that Jesus is not the Father, and that Christ Jesus has a God.
Who is the only true God according to Jesus?
“This is life eternal that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You, the only true God, has sent.” (John 17:3)
So, according to Jesus, the only True God is the one who sent him (Jesus). We also now have our answer to the question: are the Benny Hinn Christians false gods or true gods? According to Jesus, they would be false gods.
Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” (John 20:17)
Jesus has a god. As such Jesus can’t be God.
“Good master, what must I do to have eternal life? Why call me good when none is good but God!” (Mark 10:17-18)
Christians will say that Jesus is asking a rhetorical question. However, the point we cannot agree with them on is that Jesus is indirectly asserting divinity for himself. This text of Mark 10:18 is arguably used more strongly as an anti-divinity statement than some esoteric knowledge the man who came to Jesus was receiving. Again, we see the Christian argument and recognize it. However, as it is a rhetorical question, it can also be argued as a strong statement of denying deity as well.
“He that is sent is not greater than he that sent him.” (John 13:16)
Here Jesus says that there is only one true God. If there is truly a distinction in the economy of the ‘godhead’, as the Tri-theist say, then it means that ‘God the Father’ sent ‘God the Son’.
Jesus said, “He that is sent (himself) is not greater than he (God) that sent him.”
So this very distinction in the community of gods known as the “economic Trinity” is self-undoing. This is also why these two verses[John 17:3 & John 13:16], coupled together, have been so damaging to their doctrine over the years.
“For there is one God, and one Mediator between God, and man, the man (anthropos) Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5)
Prima-Qur’an Comment: If Jesus were God we wouldn’t have need of a mediator because people could go to God directly. Think about it!
“Now there is no mediator when only one party is involved, and God is one.”(Galatians 3:20)
The Qur’an itself states that righteous people can make intercession on our behalf.
“Who can intercede (mediate) except by his permission.” (Qur’an 2:255)
Note: Allah does not say Holy Prophets and righteous people cannot intercede for us. Allah simply says that no one can except by Allah’s permission’; thereby focusing the prayer and request of the individual ultimately to Allah as the source of all power.
In Islam, the Prophet Muhammed (saw) will make intercession for the righteous Muslims on the day of judgment. Whereas those Muslims who do not repent from major sins and reform their ways will be in hellfire with no redemption.
Allah is the owner of the throne, not Jesus!
“But if they turn away, say: “Allah suffices me: there is no god but He; On Him is my trust, ‘He is the Lord of the Throne Supreme!” (Qur’an 9:129)
“If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! But glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: above what they attribute to Him!” (Qur’an 21:22)
“Say: “To who belong the earth and all beings therein? If you know!:” They will say, “To Allah!” Say: “Yet will you not receive admonition? ” Say” “Who is the Lord of the seven heavens and the Lord of the Throne Supreme?” “They will say,” to Allah. “Say: “Will you then not be filled with awe?” Say”: “Who is it in whose hands is the governance of all things,-who protects all, but is not protected by any? Say if you know:. They will say, “It belongs to Allah.” Say” “Then how are you deluded?” (Qur’an 23:84-89)
“Therefore exalted be Allah, the King, the Reality: there is no god but He, the Lord of the Throne of Honor!” (Qur’an 23:116)
“Glory to the Lord of the heavens and the earth, the Lord of the Throne He is Free from the things they attribute to Him! So leave them to babble and play until they meet that Day of theirs, which they have been promised.” (Qur’an 43:82-83)
“I am the Lord and there is no other. There is no God besides me. It is I who arm you, though you know me not.” (Isaiah 45:5)
“But he, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked up intently to heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:55)
“And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man, standing at the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:56)
Note: The Holy Spirit is strangely absent from the picture. Why is that?
“If then you were raised with Christ, seek what is above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God.” (Colossians 3:1)
“Bathsheba, therefore, went unto king Solomon, to speak unto him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself to her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a seat to be set for the king’s mother, and she sat on his right hand.” (1 Kings 2:19)
“Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup,but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.” (Matthew 20:23)
Prima-Qur’an Comment: T
he above verses show that Jesus is clearly not God. Not only that, but if Jesus was God, and he was standing/sitting next to God, that would show obviously to those whose hearts are not blind that there were two gods! Reflect on what is stated in Isaiah above ‘there is no God beside me.“
So the text says Jesus was standing at the right hand of God. Then the text says Jesus was sitting at the right hand of God. Maybe after thousands of years of standing, one wants to sit down and take a break. The point is that Jesus is in proximity to the divine but clearly is not the one sitting on the main throne in the same way the mother of Solomon is not sitting on the main throne.
Christians should focus their prayer on the owner of the throne and not the one hanging out beside the throne!
Subordination of Jesus and the Holy Spirit to God: Are they truly equal?
“They have certainly disbelieved who say that Allah is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, “Then who could prevent Allah at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?” And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and Allah gives power and direction to all things.” (Qur’an 5:17)
Anyone who studies early Christian theological debates and history will know that many early Christian theologians held the concept that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were both subordinate to God in some way or another.
The proponents of Tri-theism were against this as it would render their concept of three co-eternal, co-equal persons (deities) null and void.
One such powerful argument is as follows. If Jesus is the son of God, he is not co-eternal as the Father beget him. Thus, being time-barred, he could not be co-eternal. (This was an argument from Bishop Arius)
If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this, it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing.
Bishop Arius could quote from proof text such as:
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” (Colossians 1:15)
All human beings are the ‘image of God‘.
“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God, he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27)
Moreover, in response to this, the Tri-theist would argue that Jesus is eternally begotten (an oxymoron that has no real meaning).
Even though, when asked to explain this concept of an ‘eternally begotten’ son, they fall flat. They will argue that if God is eternal Father, then it logically follows that he should have an eternal son. The only way you can be a father is if you have offspring, in this case, a son.
The Tri-theist started to back away from scripture and use philosophical and theological arguments. An example is the sun and sunlight. No sunlight equals no sun; and no sun equals no sunlight. However, even this example falls flat under scrutiny.
Where the so-called logic fails in this argument is due to the fact that nowhere does the Bible say that the Son begets the Father. Nowhere does scripture say that the Father is generated by the Son. It is the Son that flows from the Father!
The argument is that the one who is called Father is a prior to all. The Father is un-begotten or un-originated.
Subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Father.
When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.” (John 15:26)
This perspective insists that only the Father is the ultimate source and fountainhead of divinity, from whom the Son and the Spirit derive-the former by generation and the latter by a procession.
Subordination of the Son to the Father.
“And you belong to Christ and Christ belongs to God.” (1 Corinthians 2:23)
“But, I would have you to know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Corinthians 11:3)
“And when all things shall be subdued unto him (GOD), then shall the Son (Jesus) also himself be subject unto him (GOD) that put all things under him (Jesus), that God may be all in all!” (1 Corinthians 15:28)
All things are subdued unto God. The ‘all‘ here is total control.
The Son himself is subdued unto God.
The Son who reigns over all creation was granted by the one who put creation under his authority.
“And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, “All power is given unto Me in Heaven and on earth.” (Matthew 28:18)
The ‘all‘ Jesus speaks of is not total control. Because it is obviously not control over the one who has given him control.
God alone reigns supreme in the end!
Subhan”Allah! (Glory be to Allah) does it get any more clear than this?
Note: You might have this concept of the son at the‘right hand‘ of God, but in the end, God will subdue him!
The only viable option is a form of Unitarian Christianity. Trinitarian Christianity is patently false.
Text that clearly refutes Tri-theism!
The voice of Jesus is not the voice of God in essence.
“And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me. His voice you have never heard. His form you have never seen.” (John 5:37)
“No man has seen God at any time.” (1 John 4:12)
Note: Remember that if Jesus was the “God-Man” and his ‘deity’ is the same essence as the Father, then in essence his voice would be the voice of God in essence. However, Jesus clearly states that those present were not listening to the voice of God!
The people who were addressed by Jesus above (John 5:37) heard his voice. This shows the voice of Jesus in essence is not the same as God’s in essence. Thus, Jesus is not God according to the above proof text.
God is not a spirit (one of many) = Compound Unity = Trinity.
John 4:24 “God is a spirit.” (King James Version)
The text above has been corrected to the following text.
John 4:24 “God is Spirit.” (Revised Standard Version).
Spirit in Greek is Pneuma -an intangible being.
Prima Qur’an Comment: The text of John 4:24 has been corrected to show that God is spirit (singular) and not ‘a’ spirit (compound unity). If God and the Holy Spirit were of the same essence, then God would be ‘a spirit’. This text clearly refutes Tri-theism.
The Holy Spirit and God are not the same in essence.
“For He shall not speak of Himself; But whatsoever he shall hear (from God) that shall he speak; and he will show you things to come.” (John 16:13)
Prima-Qur’an Comment: Holy Spirit—Whatever he shall hear, he shall speak. If the Holy Spirit were truly the same in essence as the Father in essence, then what he speaks, in essence, would be his own in essence and not what he has heard in essence.
Jesus does not have the glory in essence that God has.
“Now glorify me, Father, with the glory that I had with you before the world began.” (John 17:5)
Is “I am the Lord this is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to idols.” (Isaiah 42:8)
Prima-Qur’an Comment: Jesus the ‘God-Man’ is asking to have the same glory that he had with the Father before the world began. If that is the case, then Jesus’ glory, in essence, is of a different glory, in essence, that of God. In essence, Jesus’ glory is not of the same essence as God.
Jesus has his own spirit.
“Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” (Luke 23:46)
Actually, if the trinity were true, the statement above should be, “Into your hands I commit our spirit.” Or, “into your hands, I commit this spirit” as a reference to the human spirit.
If Jesus and God had the same spirit in essence, then the above text should read ‘into your hands I commit our spirit; because, in essence, they would have the same spirit.
Jesus does not have the same will as God in essence.
“Not as I will, but as you will.” (Matthew 26:39)
Prima-Qur’an Comment: If Jesus the “God-Man’ had, in essence, the same will as God has in essence, then he would be God in essence. However, the will of Jesus, in essence, is different than the will of God in essence; and thus they are not the same in essence.”
Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not the same in essence.
“And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan.” (Luke 4:1)
Prima-Qur’an Comment: If Jesus was already God in essence at his incarnation, then there would be no need to make this distinction as Luke does here. Was he not full of the Holy Ghost before? Remember, according to Tri-theist, Jesus is the ‘fullness’ of the godhead’ bodily. Not only this, but it would mean that God is full of God!
Conclusion:
“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man (Anthropos) approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you also know. (Acts 2:22)
Jesus was Anthropos.
He was approved by God. God does not need anyone’s approval.
Those miracles, and wonders and signs. God did that via Jesus. Jesus did not do that of himself.
“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) save the Christians from the hellfire.
“I said not to them except what You commanded me – to worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You caused me to die., You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness.” (Qur’an 5:117)
“When Allah said, “O Jesus, indeedI will cause you to die and raise you to Myself and purify you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you [in submission to Allah alone] superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, and I will judge between you concerning that in which you used to differ.” (Qur’an 3:55)
﷽
The verb tawaffā (verbal noun: tawaffī) seems to cause a great deal of needless distress among Muslim exegetes. Why is this so?
We are going to present our case that if it was not for these oral traditions, Muslim exegetes would not argue the way they do at all.
So keep in mind that the interpretation of the verses that clearly say that Jesus died is influenced by ‘the tradition’.
Yet, the Qur’an itself offers no cause for confusion. Tawaffā appears in twenty-five verses in the Qur’an, and twice in relation to Christ Jesus (Qur’an 5:117 and Qur’an 3.55).
For twenty-three of those verses, the Muslim commentators generally follow the standard definition of this term, that is that Allah (swt) separates the soul from the body or makes someone die.
Think about this. For those verses in the Qur’an that are not tied into ahadith about Jesus(as) coming back, they are translated and understood as per usual.
Interestingly enough, we have the following du’a:
“And you do not resent us except because we believed in the signs of our Lord when they came to us. Our Lord, pour upon us patience and let us die as Muslims [in submission to You].” (Qur’an 7:126)
How often do we say this du’a after congregational prayers?
So let us use the ol Google machine — aka—the much feared and dreaded ‘Shaykh Google’ and put two and two together, shall we?
So what we are going to do as an experiment so that you, the reader, can follow along as we are going to call upon the good people at https://www.islamawakened.com-Whoever they are, may Allah (swt) bless them.
They put all the translations out for everyone to see.
So what we are going to do is show you all the disparate translations into the English language. We will then put those that don’t immediately convey the idea of death—at least to us.
Tawaffā appears in twenty-five verses: Let us examine them all.
We will go in order of the chapter and verse they appear in.
Example: 1 (Qur’an 2:234)
“And those who are taken in death among you and leave wives behind – they, [the wives, shall] wait four months and ten [days]. And when they have fulfilled their term, then there is no blame upon you for what they do with themselves in an acceptable manner. And Allah is [fully] acquainted with what you do.” (Qur’an 2:234)
Ya Allah people 51 disparate translations from people coming from different approaches to Islam have translated the passage as DEATH.
The two odd ones out: Ahmed Hulusi, a translation still in progress… and Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali and even then it finally puts “And the ones of you who are taken up, (i.e., those who die).”
You want to talk about consensus? The consensus here is that yutawaffawna means death, to die.
Example: 2(Qur’an 2:24)
“And those who are taken in death among you and leave wives behind – for their wives is a bequest: maintenance for one year without turning [them] out. But if they leave [of their own accord], then there is no blame upon you for what they do with themselves in an acceptable way. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” (Qur’an 2:24)
Once again, look at the 52 disparate translations and the verdict is that yutawaffawna means death, to die.
Example: 3 (Qur’an 3:193)
“Our Lord, indeed we have heard a caller calling to faith, [saying], ‘Believe in your Lord,’ and we have believed. Our Lord, so forgive us our sins and remove from us our misdeeds and cause us to die with the righteous.” (Qur’an 3:193)
“Gather us to Thee with the pious” — Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar
“And take us with the obedient ones”—The Monotheist Group 2011 edition.
“Take us back to You”—Aisha Bewley
“And take us to You with the ever benign (ones)”—Muhmmed Mahmoud Ghali
“Include us among the righteous people”-Bijan Moeinian
“And take us to Thee with the pious.” -Arthur John Arberry
“And claim us back with the righteous” — N J Dawood (2014)
“You never fail to fulfill your oath” — Ahmed Halusi
44 Translators are in consensus that the term watawaffanā -is to cause to die.
In fact, we would say that N J Dawood, Arberry, Bewley, Bakhtiar or the Monotheist Group, none of them believe that watawaffana here means to be bodily raised up to heaven.
Example: 4 (Qur’an 4:15)
“Those who commit unlawful sexual intercourse of your women – bring against them four [witnesses] from among you. And if they testify, confine the guilty women to houses until death takes them or Allah ordains for them [another] way.” (Qur’an 4:15)
“The angels will ask those whom they claim back while steeped in sin”- N J Dawood 2014
“And those the angels take, while still they are wronging themselves”-Arthur John Arberry
“And the angels who take those who wronged themselves will say”-Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah
“When the angles take the should of those who [had compromised and in consequence] were unjust to their own souls”-,Bijan Moeinian
“Surely the ones whom the Angels take up, (while) they are unjust to themselves”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali
“Indeed, those whom the angels take away while they are wronging themselves” -Ali Quli Qara’i
“The angels ask those they take while they are wronging themselves” -Aisha Bewley,-
“Those whom the Angels take, while they had wronged their souls.”-The Monotheist Group (2011 Edition)
“While the angels are gathering the souls of those who wronged themselves.”-Safi Kaskas
“Those whom the angels will gather up”- T. B Irving
“Truly, those whom the angels gathered to themselves.”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar
The overwhelming consensus of 42 translations is that tawaffāhumu is to die by taking the souls.
Example: 6 (Qur’an 5:117) –text that is about Jesus.
“I said not to them except what You commanded me – to worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You caused me to die., You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness.” (Qur’an 5:117)
We know the drill on this crucial passage. So let us see the disparate translations here:
“Thou hast caused me to die”-Muhammad Asad
“But when Thou didst cause me to die”-Shakir
“You did cause me to die”-Wahiduddin Khan
“You did cause me to die”- Safi Kaskas
“Ever since You took my soul”-Abdel Haleem
“And after my life had been done”- Ahmed Ali
“After You caused me to die”-Shabbir Ahmed
“but when you gave me Wafat”-Dr. Kamal Omar (NON COMMITTAL)
“You terminated my life”-Monotheist group-2013
“but when You caused me to die” -Muhammed Shafi
“Thou didst cause me to die”-Maulana Muhammad Ali
“so when You made me die”- Muhammad Ahmed-Samira
“Thou didst cause me to die”-Sher Ali
“When You terminated my life on earth”-Rashad Khalifa
“You caused me to die”- Amatul Rahman Omar
“Thou didst cause me to die” -George Sale
39 Translations overwhelming support the view that tawaffaytanī -is to be raised up, gathered up, recalled. We assume the majority believe bodily and alive.
So in the curious case of Jesus (as) the majority view is not to understand tawaffaytanī as death. That was predictable; as it will be when we get to (Qur’an 3:55).
WHAT ABOUT THE TWO VERSES THAT ARE THAN USED TO SUGGEST THAT JESUS HAS BEEN PUT TO SLEEP FOR THESE LAST 2000 YEARS? (Qur’an 6:60) & (Qur’an 39:42)
That is to say they want to argue that Jesus (as) has been put to sleep and will one day wake up at some unspecified time. Presumably as per various hadith traditions etc.
Example: 7(Qur’an 6:60)
“And it is He who takes your souls by night and knows what you have committed by day. Then He revives you therein that a specified term may be fulfilled. Then to Him will be your return; then He will inform you about what you used to do.” (Qur’an 6:60)
“Allah takes the souls at the time of their death, and those that do not die [He takes] during their (manāmihā)sleep. Then He keeps those for which He has decreed death and releases the others for a specified term. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought.” (Qur’an 39:42)
This is why we have the well known du’a for going to sleep and rising from sleep:
Narrated Hudhaifa:
Whenever the Prophet (saw) intended to go to bed, he would recite: “Bismika Allahumma amutu wa ahya (With Your name, O Allah, I die and I live).” And when he woke up from his sleep, he would say: “Al-hamdu lil-lahil-ladhi ahyana ba’da ma amatana; wa ilaihi an-nushur (All the Praises are for Allah Who has made us alive after He made us die (sleep) and unto Him is the Resurrection). “
Question: Has anyone observed a person sleeping that their body suddenly disappeared or went some where else?
I think we all know the answer is No.
“And He has made me blessed wherever I am and has enjoined up me prayer and zakah as long as I remain alive.” (Qur’an 19:31)
What kind of embellished claims are you going to make about Jesus (as) giving zakat in the heavens while asleep?!!
Here is the interesting point about these verses. If as some of the exegetes want to understand it as ‘you put me to sleep‘ and ‘than raised me up‘ than what about those who say, “No he raises him up first and than will put him to sleep in the future!”
DO TELL US WHICH VERSION IS CORRECT?
They would be taking into account:
“but Allah raised him to Himself. Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 4:158)
Does that really make any sense? They can’t both be correct.
Also know that Qur’an 5:117 or Qur’an 3:55 can’t be understood as falling asleep. It is actually negated by Qur’an 6:60 and Qur’an 39:42
Why? Allah (swt) either:
Takes souls at the time of their death. If the souls are taken the person(body) dies.
Other souls are taken during sleep-during an unspecified period of time-if they are not returned than they die in their sleep leaving behind a body.
Other souls are taken during sleep-during an unspecified period of time –If they are returned to their body the person lives the course of their natural life until they die in the future.
In all three examples thebody is left behind. There are no examples where tawaffā means to taking the soul and the body.
So since our interlocutors in this discussion will absolutely rule out points 1 & 2 with regards to Christ Jesus (as) let us look at point 3.
Let us put up the two verses in consideration and juxtapose them. We will put up two translations that are very user friendly to the ‘he didn’t die and was bodily raised up‘ crowd.
“Behold! Allah said: “O Jesus! I will take thee AND raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein you dispute.” (Qur’an 3:55 Yusuf Ali translation)
“Never said I to them aught except what You did command me to say, ‘worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord’; and I was a witness over them while I dwelt among them; when You did take me up You were the Watcher over them, and You are a witness to all things.” (Qur’an 5:117 Yusuf Ali translation)
Now if we only had Qur’an 5:117 and we were feeling really charitable (despite the fact the word is translated as death every where else)- we could say, “O.K. maybe you have a point“.
However, Qur’an 5:117 has to also be in harmony with Qur’an 3:55 doesn’t it?
This is where our interlocutors are in a most difficult situation. Why are they in a most difficult situation? Qur’an 3:55 says, “mutawaffīka WA rāfiʿuka.”
Thus, their arguments make the Qur’an a redundant revelation.
It would be akin to saying: “I am going to take your soul from your body (just like when we sleep) and than I am going to raise up (presumably) your physical body. It would have been sufficient to just say that Allah (swt) ‘took him up’.
However, we have this slight problem. We have this very troublesome conjunction called ‘WA‘ -AND.
Why does Allah (swt) want you to know that he did something to Jesus (as) before “taking him up”? Couldn’t Allah (swt) just say that he “took him up”?
Why would Allah (swt) say, “I made Jesus fall asleep and than I took him up.” What point is being made there?
“Gabriel replied, ‘Muhammed.’ It was asked, ‘Has he been called?’ Gabriel answered in the affirmative. Then it was said, ‘He is welcomed. What an excellent visit his is!’ The gate was opened. When I went over the second heaven, there I saw Yahya (i.e. John) and `Isa (i.e. Jesus) who were cousins of each other. Gabriel said (to me), ‘These are John and Jesus; pay them your greetings.’ So I greeted them and both of them returned my greetings to me and said, ‘You are welcomed, O pious brother and pious Prophet.’ ”
What should we expect concerning the state of those Prophets (May Allah’s peace and blessings be upon them all)?
“The Messiah, son of Mary, is no more than a messenger, certainly the messengers before him have passed away. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!” (Qur’an 5:75)
So in light of Qur’an 6:60 and Q ur’an 39:42
Are there any indications in Qur’an 5:117 or Qur’an 3:55 that Allah (swt) took a soul out of Jesus -during a sleep phase -only to put it back in, and afterwards raise a body up?
“And has blessed me wherever I might be and has enjoined upon me Prayer and Zakah (purifying alms) as long as I live.” (Qur’an 19: 31)
Is Jesus(as) asleep (hence why he’s not doing zakat-for as long he lives?) being ‘disembodied‘ -meaning his soul is some where and his body is some where else? Yet , he has time for a quick meet and greet with the Blessed Prophet (saw) according to the above hadith?
In fact one of the Mauritanian Shaykhs -Shaykh Salek bin Siddina āl-Māliki whom was called upon to correct Mufti Abu Layth doesn’t buy into the argument of redundancy either.
This Shaykh knows full well what the text says and so he uses a different strategy -to save the hadith traditions-of course!
(We have also downloaded this video-you know-in case it mysteriously vanishes)
Here are some notes we took of the video in the post linked to above.
We thought it was interesting. The translator said: @ 0:55 “Isa alayi salam has died a complete death.”
Prima Qur’an comments: “What other kind of death is there?”
@ 3:30 minutes, the translator addresses what the Shaykh says: “Mutawafikka is a word that can be translated to ‘I will cause you to die.’ It is mentioned in a way that it does not indicate any particular order.”
“Allah says I will cause you to die, and I will raise you to me, it doesn’t it is used…”
@5:11 minutes, the translator addresses what the Shaykh says:
“So this ‘And’ is the type of WA that is being used. Those are both things that are being done, not necessarily in a particular order.” “In the statement that Zayd and Umar came, it doesn’t mean that Zayd came first. Not in any way does it indicate an order of those things.”
Prima Qur’an comments:
Firstly. May Allah (swt) have patience with the translator. The shaykh often would not allow the translator to finish. If the idea is to convey in Arabic let it be conveyed in Arabic, but if there is an agreement that this knowledge is to be transmitted by translation into English, than give the translator time.
Second the respected shaykh knows full well the obvious that ‘mutawafikka‘ means ‘I will cause you to die‘.
Third he definitely is not on board with the interpretation: “No he raises him up first and than will put him to sleep in the future!“
Fourth the shaykh being influenced by the traditions has to make the Qur’an confirm to his presuppositions. As we stated before if it were not for the traditions (which the shaykh brought up quite often) you would wonder if he would have felt the need to use this literary device. In English we call this hysteron proteron.
For example you could say I put on my shoes and socks. No one understands that you put the shoes on and then the socks.
So what is important that we take away from this is that.
The Shaykh understands the word in Qur’an 3:55 means death
A cursory reading of the text would be ‘I will cause you to to die and than elevate you.’
The obvious understanding of the text is made to conform to a literary device. This is obviously based upon the presupposition the shaykh holds to the ahadith.
Another point about Qur’an 5:117
Narrated Ibn `Abbas:
Allah’s Messenger (saw) delivered a sermon and said, “O people! You will be gathered before Allah barefooted, naked and not circumcised.” Then (quoting Qur’an) he said:– “As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it. A promise We have undertaken: Truly we shall do it..” The Prophet (saw) then said, “The first of the human beings to be dressed on the Day of Resurrection, will be Abraham. Lo! Some men from my followers will be brought and then (the angels) will drive them to the left side (Hell-Fire). I will say. ‘O my Lord! (They are) my companions!’ Then a reply will come (from Almighty), ‘You do not know what they did after you.’I will say as the pious slave (the Prophet (as) Jesus) said: And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them. When You took me up. You were the Watcher over them and You are a Witness to all things.’ (Qur’an 5:117) Then it will be said, “These people have continued to be apostates since you left them.”
Now what is the condition of the Blessed Prophet (saw) at this point when he used that phrase “When you took me up?” It is clear that Allah (swt) took his soul and his body is in Madinah. In other words the Prophet Muhammed (saw) died.
Was he taken body and soul into the heavens?
Example: 8 (Qur’an 6:61)
“And He is the subjugator over His servants, and He sends over you guardian-angels until,when death comes to one of you, Our messengers take him, and they do not fail [in their duties].” (Qur’an 6:61)
The unanimous decision of 54 translations is that tawaffathu is death.
Example: 9 (Qur’an 7:37)
“And who is more unjust than one who invents about Allah a lie or denies His verses? Those will attain their portion of the decree until when Our messengers come to them to take them in death, they will say, “Where are those you used to invoke besides Allah ?” They will say, “They have departed from us,” and will bear witness against themselves that they were disbelievers.” (Qur’an 7:37)
“When Our messengers come to gather them”- M.M Pickthall
“Our Messengers drew near to gather them to themselves” -Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar
“Our messengers come to carry them off”-T.B Irving
“So that when Our messengers come to take them”-The Monotheist Group (2011) -changed position in 2013.
“When Our angels arrive to take them back”-Abdel Haleem
“When Our messengers come to take them away”- “Ali Quli Qara’i
“When Our Messengers come to them to take them up”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali
“Our Messengers come to take them away.”- Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah
“Our messengers come to them, to take them away”- Arthur John Arberry
“Until when Our messengers come to them to take them away”- Sayyed Abbas Sadr-Ameli
44 disparate translations are unanimous in their decision that yatawaffawnahum means to take the souls and or to die.
Worth mentioning is that ‘The Monotheist Group‘ translation changed in 2013.
Example: 10 (Qur’an 7:126)
“And you do not resent us except because we believed in the signs of our Lord when they came to us. Our Lord, pour upon us patience and let us die as Muslims [in submission to You].” (Qur’an 7:126)
“Lift us (from the world)”-Dr. Mohammed Tahir Qadri.
“And gather us unto Thee”- Arthur John Arberry.
“And take us to Thyself resigned”-Edward Henry Palmer
47 disparate translations believe that watawaffana is to die.
Even those that don’t translate it as such take for example Dr. Mohmmed Tahir Qadri, do you really think his belief when making this du’a is that Muslims will be taken bodily into the sky? Does anyone really think Aisha Bewley believes this?
Example: 11 (Qur’an 8:50)
“And if you could but see when the angels take the souls of those who disbelieved… They are striking their faces and their backs and [saying], “Taste the punishment of the Burning Fire.” (Qur’an 8:50)
“Are called to themselves by the angels”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar
“See as the Angels take those who have rejected”-The Monotheist Group 2011 -changed in 2013 edition
“When the angels take away the faithless”-Ali Quli Qara’i
“As they take up the ones who disbelieved”, -Muhmmed Mahmoud Ghali
“As the angels take away those who disbelieve”-Talal A. Itani (new translation)
When the angels take the unbelievers”-Arthur John Arberry
47 disparate translations are in agreement that yatawaffameans to separate the soul from the body, to cause to die.
Example: 12 (Qur’an 10:46)
“And whether We show you some of what We promise them, [O Muhammed], or We take you in death, to Us is their return; then, [either way], Allah is a witness concerning what they are doing.” (Qur’an 10:46)
“Or whether We will take you to Ourself”-Hamid S. Aziz
“We definitely take you up to Us” -Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali
“Or We take you back to Us”-Muhammed Taqi Usmani
“Or take you”-Talal A. Itani
“Or We call you unto Us”-Maududi
“We call you towards Us”- Faridul Haque
“Or We call you to Us”- Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah
“Or We call you unto Us”- Ahmed Raza Khan (Barelvi)
“We call thee unto Us”-Arthur John Arberry
“Or we will take thee to ourself”-Edward Henry Palmer
“Or whether we first take thee to Ourself”-John Medows Rodwell
“Or claim you back to Us”-N J Dawood (2014)
37 disparate translations are of the view that natawaffayannaka means to cause to die, to separate the soul from the body.
Now there are a few points that need to be mentioned here. Understand that many people who don’t believe that the Prophet (saw) is dead. They believe that the Prophet (saw) was poisoned by a Jewish woman and that made him (saw) a martyr. Therefore, he is alive ‘though we do not perceive it’. However, if you ask them if they believe a body is in the Prophets Mosque in Medina, they will answer ‘of course’.
In fact, every one of those translators who translate as they do asks them point-blank, “Do you believe there is a body in the Mosque in Medina with the Green Dome?”
Remember the point we mentioned earlier about these people making the Qur’an redundant?
Let’s take the translation of Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali
Let us look at he translates the above text:
“And whether We definitely show you something (i.e., some form of punishment) of what We promise them, or We definitely take you up to Us, then to Us will be their return; thereafter Allah is Ever-Witnessing over whatever they perform.” (Qur’an 10:46)
“We definitely take you up to Us” -Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali
Now let us look at he translates Qur’an 3:55
“As Allah said, “O Isa, (Jesus) surely, I am taking you up to Me, and I am raising you up to Me, and I am purifying you of the ones who have disbelieved. And I am making the ones who have closely followed you above the ones who have disbelieved until the Day of the Resurrection. Thereafter to Me will be your return; so I will judge between you as to whatever you used to differ in.” (Qur’an 3:55)
“I am taking you up to Me, and I am raising you up to Me.” – Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali.
Notice the redundancy in the language used? He could have just translated as “I am taking you up to Me” OR “I am raising you up to Me” -because in his mind they both mean the same thing.
This is the exact kind of problems that they run into when they approach the Qur’an with a mind of making it to conform to the oral traditions.
Example: 13(Qur’an 10:104)
“Say, [O Muhammed], “O people, if you are in doubt as to my religion – then I do not worship those which you worship besides Allah ; but I worship Allah , who causes your death. And I have been commanded to be of the believers.” (Qur’an 10:104)
“Who will eventually retrieve you back to Him”- Safi Kaskas
“Who takes me”-The Monotheist Group 2011 edition -changed in the 2013 edition.
“Who will take you back to Him”-Aisha Bewley
“Who takes you to Himself”-Hamid S. Aziz
“Who takes you up to Him”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali
“I only serve Allah Who will cause (all of) you to”-Maududi
“Who will gather you to Him”-Arthur John Arberry
“Who takes you to Himself”_Edward Henry Palmer
“Who will claim you back”-N J Dawood (2014)
43 disparate translations understand yatawaffākum to mean to terminate the life of, to take the souls, to cause to die.
Example: 14(Qur’an 12:101)
“My Lord, You have given me [something] of sovereignty and taught me of the interpretation of dreams. Creator of the heavens and earth, You are my protector in this world and in the Hereafter. Cause me to die a Muslim and join me with the righteous.” (Qur’an 12:101)
“Call me to Thyself as one who submits.”-Dr. Laleh Bakthiar
“Gather me in as a Muslim.”-T.B Irving
“Take me as one who has surrendered.”-The Monotheist Group 2011 Edition -changed in the 2013 edition
“O receive me to Thee in true submission.”-Arthur John Arberry
“Take me to Thyself resigned,” -Edward Henry Palmer
49 different disparate translations understand tawaffani as to die , to separate the soul from the body.
Example: 15(Qur’an 13:40)
“And whether We show you part of what We promise them or take you in death, upon you is only the [duty of] notification, and upon Us is the account.” (Qur’an 13:40)
“Or We call you to Us before”- Ahmed Raza Khan (Barelvi)
“Or We lift you.”-Dr. Mohammad Tahir-ul-Qadri
“We call thee to Us”-Arthur John Arberry
“Or we will take thee to Ourself”-Edward Henry Palmer
“Or whether we take thee hence”-John Medows Rodwell
“Or claim you back to Us”-N J Dawood (2014)
37 Disparate translations understandnatawaffayannaka to mean to die , to separate the soul from the body.
Example: 16(Qur’an 16:28)
“The ones whom the angels take in death [while] wronging themselves, and [who] then offer submission, [saying], “We were not doing any evil.” But, yes! Indeed, Allah is Knowing of what you used to do.” (Qur’an 16:28)
“Those whom the angels call to themselves”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar
“Whom the angels will carry away”-T.B. Irving
“Those whom the Angels take while they had wronged their souls”-The Monotheist Group 2011 Edition -changed in the 2013 edition.
“Those whom the angels take away while they are wronging themselves”- Ali Quli Qara’i
“Those whom the angels take away while they are wronging their own souls.”-Hamid S. Aziz
“Whom the Angels take up while they are unjust to themselves.”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali
“The unjust, who will be seized by the angels, will submit themselves”-Muhammed Sarwar
“Whom the angels take while they were still harming themselves.”-Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah
“Whom the angels take while still they are wronging themselves”-Arthur John Arberry
“Those whom the angels took away were wronging themselves;”-Edward Henry Palmer
“Those whom the angels will claim back”- N J Dawood (2014)
43 different and disparate translations have tatawaffāhumu understood to be taken in death.
Example: 17(Qur’an 16:32)
“The ones whom the angels take in death,[being] good and pure; [the angels] will say, “Peace be upon you. Enter Paradise for what you used to do.” (Qur’an 16:32)
“Those whom the angels call to themselves”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar
“Whom the angels carry off”-T.B. Irving
“Those whom the Angels take”-The Monotheist Group 2011 Edition-changed in 2013 edition
“Those the angels take in a virtuous state.”-Aisha Bewley
“Those whom the angels take away while they are pure”.-Ali Quli Qara’i
“To those whom the angels take away in a goodly state”-Hamid S. Aziz
“Whom the Angels take up while they are goodly”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali
“They will be received by the angels of mercy”-Muhammed Sarwar
“Those who are in a wholesome state when the angels take them”-Talal A. Itani
“Whom the angels take while they are goodly”- Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah
“Whom the angels take while they are goodly”-Arthur John Arberry
“To those whom the angels take off in a goodly state:-Edward Henry Palmer
“Whom the angels will claim”-N J Dawood (2014)
41 different and disparate translations understandtatawaffāhumu as to take in death, to take the soul.
Example: 18(Qur’an 16:70)
“And Allah created you; then He will take you in death. And among you is he who is reversed to the most decrepit [old] age so that he will not know, after [having had] knowledge, a thing. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Competent.” (Qur’an 16:70)
“He will take you”-The Monotheist Group 2011 Edition -2013 edition they changed their position.
“Will take you back again”-Aisha Bewley
“Then He takes you away”-Ali Quli Qara’i
“Then He will take you to Himself”-Hamid S. Aziz
“Thereafter He takes you (to Him)”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali
“Then He takes you back”-Muhammed Taqi Usmani
“Then He takes you away”-Talal A. Itani
“Then He will gather you to Him”-Arthur John Arberry
“Then He will take you to Himself”-Edward Henry Palmer
“By and bye will he take you to himself”-John Medows Rodwell
“And He will then reclaim you”-N J Dawood (2014)
41 disparate translations understand yatawaffākum- as to cause to die, to separate the soul from the body.
Example 19: (Qur’an 22:5)
“O People, if you should be in doubt about the Resurrection, then [consider that] indeed, We created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then from a clinging clot, and then from a lump of flesh, formed and unformed – that We may show you. And We settle in the wombs whom We will for a specified term, then We bring you out as a child, and then [We develop you] that you may reach your [time of] maturity. And among you is he who is taken in [early] death, and among you is he who is returned to the most decrepit [old] age so that he knows, after [once having] knowledge, nothing. And you see the earth barren, but when We send down upon it rain, it quivers and swells and grows [something] of every beautiful kind.” (Qur’an 22:5)
Prima Qur’an Comments: One thing is certain you cannot escape death. Look at all thes above translators of Qur’an 22:5 who were very reluctant to use the word death or dying. They resisted and resisted and finally they yield.
“And among you there is he whom death will call to itself”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar
“[Then] there are some of you who are taken away”-Ali Quli Qara’i –this guy still resist 😉
“And among you there is he who is taken up, (i.e., dies)“-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali. So now Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali sheds light on what he means by ‘is taken up‘ i.e -death.
“Then We (rear you) that you may attain your (age of) full strength. And among you then is he who is allowed to complete (the normal life-span)”- Dr. Kamal Omar -odd translation
“And some of you die“-Arthur John Arberry
“And of you are some who die“-Edward Henry Palmer
“Some among you die young”-N J Dawood (2014)
Example 20: (Qur’an 32:11)THE MOST POWERFUL VERSE FOR LOOKING AT ALL THESE ODD TRANSLATIONS
Say, “The angel of death will take your soul who has been entrusted with you. Then to your Lord you will be returned.” (Qur’an 32:11)
“Will take you”-The Monotheist Group 2011-the 2013 edition modified their translation
“Will take you up”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali
“Will collect you”-Shabbir Ahmed
“Will take you”-Umm Muhmmad Sahih Internationl
“Will reclaim you”-Talal A. Itani
Will gather you”- Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah
“Shall gather you”-Arthur John Arberry
“Shall take you away”-Edward Henry Palmer
“Will claim you back.”-N J Dawood (2014)
“Will gather you”-Sayyid Qutb
The reason why this is the most powerful verse yet discussed is because it deals with the angel of death. What does the angel of death do? It is very obvious. The fact that translators who we have seen use that same ambiguity here makes it now both known and clear what they mean.
So for example when we see them use ambiguous terms like:
“gather you”
“call you to itself”
“retrieve you”
“take you up”
“collect you”
“claim you”
“reclaim you”
“summoned”
We now know with certainty that all of these authors meant ‘to die’, ‘to separate the soul from the body’ ‘to take the soul’. What else does the Angel of Death do? Notice you kept seeing practically the same group of people that will over and over use ambiguous terms. Instead of making their case plain in the most obvious situation—”the angel of death” — they still choose to use ambiguous language — which sheds light on their ambiguity in all other places! This actually means that the verb tawaffā (verbal noun: tawaffī) is being translated nearly 100% of the time as to die, to cause to die, to separate the soul from the body!
Thank you! Al hamdulillah!
Example: 21 (Qur’an 39:42)
“Allah takes the souls at the time of their death, and those that do not die [He takes] during their sleep. Then He keeps those for which He has decreed death and releases the others for a specified term. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought.” (Qur’an 39:42)
This is another very powerful verse. Not a single translator can play with the text here. It is as Allah (swt) says,
“We have brought them a Scripture – We have explained it on the basis of knowledge – as guidance and mercy for those who believe.” (Qur’an 7:52)
The beautiful thing about this verse is that death is clearly contrasted with sleep (as explained in a similar verse above).
Here there is 100% unanimous approval from the translators that yatawaffā is death, final death, physical death, taking the soul from the body.
Translators (any of us) can try and play fast & loose with the words of Allah (swt) but sooner or latter we will get caught out.
Example :22 (Qur’an 39:42)
“It is He who created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then from a clinging clot; then He brings you out as a child; then [He develops you] that you reach your [time of] maturity, then [further] that you become elders. And among you is he who is taken in death before [that], so that you reach a specified term; and perhaps you will use reason.” (Qur’an 39:42)
“And some are summoned before completing the whole cycle”-Bijan Moeinian
“Are taken away before”-Edward Henry Palmer
Once again, there is unanimous understanding that ‘yatawaffa’ means to die, to be taken in death, to take the soul, to separate the soul from the body.
Remember as well that these ambiguous terms: ‘summoned’, ‘taken away’, ‘recalled’, ‘gone with the wind’, ‘spirited away’ etc. None of that is ambiguous to us now. It all means having died.
Example: 23(Qur’an 40:77)
“So be patient, [O Muhammed]; indeed, the promise of Allah is truth. And whether We show you some of what We have promised them orWe take you in death, it is to Us they will be returned.” (Qur’an 40:77)
“We definitely take you up (to Us)”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali
“We recall you”-Farook Malik
“Or take you to Us”-Talal A. Itani
“Or We recall you (from this world)”-Maududi
“Call you to Us”- Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah
“Or make you depart from the visible life”-Dr. Mohammed Tahir-ul-Qadri (from the visible life-what’s he mean here make you become invisible?) (walk around cloaked from vision)
“We call thee unto Us”-Arthur John Arberry
“Take thee to ourself”-Edward Henry Palmer
“Or claim you back”-N J Dawood 2014
The unanimous decision is that natawaffayannaka means to cause to die, to take the life of, to separate the soul from the body. The only exception seems to be Dr. Mohammad Tahir Ul Qadri who seems to be offering everyone the power of invisibility; however we are sure that you dear reader will see this is not the case.
Exampe: 24 (Qur’an 47:27)
“Then how [will it be] when the angels take them in death, striking their faces and their backs?” (Qur’an 47:27)
“Angels will call them to themselves”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar
“Gather them up”-T. B. Irving
“Then the angels take them away”-Ali Quli Qara’i
“Angels take them up”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali
“The angels take them”-Arthur John Arberry
Again the unanimous consensus is that tawaffathumu means to die, to cause to die, to take the soul at death, to separate the soul from the body.
Example: 25(Qur’an 3:55)text that is about Jesus.
“When Allah said, “O Jesus, indeedI will cause you to die and raise you to Myself and purify you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you [in submission to Allah alone] superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, and I will judge between you concerning that in which you used to differ.” (Qur’an 3:55)
We all know the drill of how the masses understand these ayats and how both the bulk of majority scholarship want the masses to understand them.
Tawaffā appears in twenty-five passages in the Qur’an, and twice in relation to Christ Jesus (Qur’an 5:117 & Qur’an 3.55).
Conclusion and Summary
The Qur’anic usage of tawaffā is remarkably consistent
The linguistic facts:
Tawaffā / tawaffī appears ~25 times in the Qur’an.
In every uncontroversial context, it means:
Allah takes the soul
i.e. death (final death or death-like separation, as in sleep, where the body remains)
Even in verses where translators use softer English (“take”, “gather”, “recall”, “claim”), the underlying meaning is still death, as we convincingly demonstrated by:
Context (Angel of Death, punishment, resurrection)
Cross-comparison with Qur’an 39:42 and 6:60
The translators’ own theology (none believe people are bodily lifted into heaven at death)
In other words:
Lexically, contextually, and theologically, tawaffā in the Qur’an means “to take the soul,” resulting in death.
No neutral reader disputes this.
The problem only appears with Jesus (Q 3:55 and Q 5:117)
We correctly identified the anomaly:
23 verses → tawaffā = death
2 verses about Jesus → suddenly reinterpreted
This inconsistency is not driven by Arabic, grammar, or Qur’anic context.
It is driven by extra-Qur’anic commitments.
The real pressure comes from hadith-based eschatology
Classical Sunni theology developed a very detailed end-times narrative in which:
Jesus is alive
He was raised bodily
He will return physically before the Hour
Once that framework is assumed, the Qur’an must be made to fit it.
So when exegetes reach:
Qur’an 3:55 (mutawaffīka wa rāfiʿuka)
Qur’an 5:117 (falammā tawaffaytanī)
They face a dilemma:
Either:
Read tawaffā consistently → Jesus died
Or preserve the tradition → reinterpret the word
They overwhelmingly choose option 2.
How exegetes resolve the tension (as we have documented)
To preserve the tradition, they resort to:
a) Redefinition
Claiming tawaffā here means:
“taking without death”
“taking the soul temporarily”
“taking body and soul”
➡️ None of these meanings exist elsewhere in the Qur’an
b) Literary devices (e.g., hysteron proteron)
Arguing that:
“wa (and) does not imply order”
So:
“I will cause you to die and raise you” does not mean death precedes raising
This move is theologically motivated, not text-driven.
As we have noted:
A plain reading already makes sense
The literary device is introduced only because death is unacceptable
c) Strategic ambiguity in translation
Using phrases like:
“take you to Myself”
“recall”
“gather”
“claim back”
Yet the same translators use these exact phrases for ordinary death elsewhere, including:
The Angel of Death (Qur’an 32:11)
Disbelievers being punished
The Prophet Muhammed (saw) himself
This exposes the inconsistency.
The Qur’an 39:42 destroys the “sleep” theory
We highlighted the decisive verse:
Allah takes the souls at the time of their death, and those that do not die during their sleep…
This verse establishes three categories only:
Soul taken → death
Soul taken during sleep → body remains
Soul returned → life continues
There is no category where the body is taken.
So:
“Jesus was asleep for 2000 years”
“Jesus’ soul was taken but his body raised”
“Jesus is alive somewhere bodily”
➡️ None of these fit Qur’anic anthropology
Qur’an 3:55 and the problem of redundancy
The observation here is crucial:
mutawaffīka WA rāfiʿuka
If tawaffā already means “raise bodily,” then:
rāfiʿuka becomes redundant
The verse collapses into tautology
But if tawaffā means death, the verse is elegant and non-redundant:
Death (completion of earthly mission)
Elevation in rank/status with Allah
Purification from accusations
Vindication of followers
This reading:
Fits Qur’anic style
Fits Qur’anic anthropology
Fits Qur’an 5:75 (“messengers before him passed away”)
Why the distress persists?
So we return to our original question.
Why does tawaffā cause so much distress?
Because:
Accepting its Qur’anic meaning forces a revision of inherited eschatology
That revision feels, to many, like undermining tradition
So the text is bent to protect the framework rather than the reverse
In short:
The distress is not linguistic. It is theological. And it is inherited, not Qur’anic.
Final takeaway
Our documentation shows that:
The Qur’an is internally consistent
The word tawaffā is not ambiguous in usage
The ambiguity appears only when external narratives are imposed
Once those narratives are removed, the verses about Jesus read plainly
As we concluded:
“If it were not for the traditions, Muslim exegetes would not argue this way at all.”
Jesus (alayi salam) he is dead. He is not coming back!
Open your eyes brothers and sisters, dear truth seekers.
“Behold! Allah said: “O Jesus! I will take thee AND raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.” (Qur’an 3:55 Yusuf Ali translation)
“Never said I to them aught except what You did command me to say,’worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord’; and I was a witness over them while I dwelt among them; when You did take me up You were the Watcher over them, and You are a witness to all things.” (Qur’an 5:117 Yusuf Ali translation)
We have used two translations that are friendly towards those who claim that Jesus (as) did not die.
In this article we will comment on a discussion concerning Qur’an 3:55 given by Shaykh, Saleh bin Siddina al-Maliki.
There were some very interesting points that were brought up during his commentary of Qur’an 3:55. Chief of which is that the Shaykh is convinced that the verse specifically refers to the death of Jesus (as).
However, the Shaykh gave us a perhaps scenario using an acceptable literary device.
Now if we only had Qur’an 5:117 and didn’t have Qur’an 3:55 and only IF we were feeling really charitable (despite the fact the word is translated as death everywhere else) — we could say o.k maybe those who believe Jesus (as) was to put sleep have some merit.
However, Qur’an 5:117 also has to be in harmony with Qur’an 3:55 doesn’t it?
This is where our interlocutors are in a most difficult situation. Why are they in the most difficult situation? Qur’an 3:55 says, “mutawaffīka WA rāfiʿuka.”
Thus, their arguments make the Qur’an a redundant revelation. It would have been sufficient to just say that Allah (swt) ‘took him up’.
However, we have this slight problem. We have this very troublesome conjunction called ‘WA‘ –AND.
In fact, one of the Mauritanian Shaykhs — Shaykh Salek bin Siddina āl-Māliki doesn’t buy into the argument of redundancy either.
Respected Shaykh, Saleh bin Siddina al-Maliki has attempted to give a response to a question on Qur’an 3:55 about a possible scenario.
This Shaykh knows full well what the text says, and so he uses a different strategy — to save the hadith traditions—of course!
See for yourself!
Here are some notes we took of the video.
We thought it was interesting. The translator said: @ 0:55 “Isa alayi salam has died a complete death.”
Prima Qur’an comments: “What other kind of death is there?”
@ 3:30 minutes, the translator addresses what the Shaykh says: “Mutawafikka is a word that can be translated to ‘I will cause you to die.’ It is mentioned in a way that it does not indicate any particular order.”
“Allah says I will cause you to die, and I will raise you to me, it doesn’t it is used…”
@5:11 minutes, the translator addresses what the Shaykh says:
“So this ‘And’ is the type of WA that is being used. Those are both things that are being done, not necessarily in a particular order.” “In the statement that Zayd and Umar came, it doesn’t mean that Zayd came first. Not in any way does it indicate an order of those things.”
Prima Qur’an comments:
The respected Shaykh knows full well the obvious that ‘mutawafikka’ means ‘I will cause you to die’.
Secondly, he definitely is not on board with the interpretation: “No, he raises him up first and then will put him to sleep in the future!” Or the view that Allah (swt) put him to sleep first and then will raise him up.
Third, the Shaykh, being influenced by the traditions, has to make the Qur’an confirm his presuppositions. As we have said before, if it were not for the traditions (which the Shaykh brought up quite often) you would wonder if he would have felt the need to use this literary device.
In English, we call this hysteron proteron.
For example, in the Arabic language you could say I put on my shoes and socks. No one understands that you put the shoes on and then the socks.
So what the Shaykh has given us is a perhaps scenario. And a ‘perhaps’ scenario is not something definitive in aqidah.
Also, do take note of the interesting admissions in the above interview:
@11:24 “There is a weak narration or a weak statement, an opinion that Allah (swt) caused Isa (as) to die for a few moments, or a few minutes or a short period of time, and then resurrected him after that.”
@12:04 “A place of acceptance, elevated and exalted; because Allah (swt) is not confined to space or time.”
Prima Qur’an comments:
This is very important because it shows us that rafi’uka does not necessarily mean a physical location. “I will take these AND raise thee to Myself.”
In fact, Ibn Taymiyyah used Qur’an 3:55 to try and say that Allah (swt) has a location. This was responded to by Ibn Jahbal Al-Kilabi
“Perhaps he believes that elevation (al-raf’) can only be in the upward direction? If this is what occurred to him, then this, also, is inconceivable except in corporeal and dimensional terms. If he holds other than that, then his inference is not on a literal basis at all. If he actually asserts corporeality and dimensionality, then there is no need to point out his error. Perhaps he never heard of elevation being used in the sense of rank and the obtainment of status in the language of the Arabs and in common usage. Perhaps he never heard the phrase “Allah raised So-and-so’s state.”
Source: (The Refutation of Him Who Attributes Direction to Allah translated by Gibril Fouad Haddad on page 178)
Which, by the way, there is no evidence that Jesus (as) was raised with a body in the Qur’an.
Also, do take note. They spent some time talking about Muhammad al-Tahir ibn Ashur, a famous Maliki scholar who wrote a tafsir of the Qur’an. He believed that Jesus (as) died. We did not hear any takfir made of him or any excommunication made of him.
You can read about Ibn Ashur’s view here: (which can easily be translated into English)
So what is important that we take away from this is the following:
The Shaykh understands the word mutawafikka in Qur’an 3:55 means death, not sleep. It’s just that he believes it is something that is yet to come.
A cursory reading of the text would be ‘I will cause you to die and then elevate you.’ The Shaykh has to rely upon a perhaps scenario. A perhaps scenario is not definitive in aqidah.
The obvious understanding of the text is made to conform to a literary device. This is obviously based upon the presupposition the Shaykh holds in given deference to the ahadith about Jesus (as) coming back.
“Oh My Lord Advance me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)
“Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.” (Proverbs 3:5-6)
﷽
One thing one will not fail to notice when reading the Bible is that in some areas God seems very focused on precision.
The angel who talked with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city, its gates and its walls. The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia in length, and as wide and high as it is long. The angel measured the wall using human measurement, and it was 144 cubits thick.” (Revelation 21:15-17)
In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth of the month, in the fourteenth year after the fall of the city—on that very day the hand of the Lord was on me and he took me there. In visions of God he took me to the land of Israel and set me on a very high mountain, on whose south side were some buildings that looked like a city. He took me there, and I saw a man whose appearance was like bronze; he was standing in the gateway with a linen cord and a measuring rod in his hand. The man said to me, “Son of man, look carefully and listen closely and pay attention to everything I am going to show you, for that is why you have been brought here. Tell the people of Israel everything you see.” I saw a wall completely surrounding the temple area. The length of the measuring rod in the man’s hand was six long cubits, each of which was a cubit and a handbreadth. He measured the wall; it was one measuring rod thick and one rod high.Then he went to the east gate. He climbed its steps and measured the threshold of the gate; it was one rod deep. The alcoves for the guards were one rod long and one rod wide, and the projecting walls between the alcoves were five cubits thick. And the threshold of the gate next to the portico facing the temple was one rod deep. Then he measured the portico of the gateway;it was eight cubits deep and its jambs were two cubits thick. The portico of the gateway faced the temple.Inside the east gate were three alcoves on each side; the three had the same measurements, and the faces of the projecting walls on each side had the same measurements. Then he measured the width of the entrance of the gateway; it was ten cubits and its length was thirteen cubits.In front of each alcove was a wall one cubit high, and the alcoves were six cubits square.Then he measured the gateway from the top of the rear wall of one alcove to the top of the opposite one; the distance was twenty-five cubits from one parapet opening to the opposite one.He measured along the faces of the projecting walls all around the inside of the gateway—sixty cubits. The measurement was up to the portico facing the courtyard.The distance from the entrance of the gateway to the far end of its portico was fifty cubits.The alcoves and the projecting walls inside the gateway were surmounted by narrow parapet openings all around, as was the portico; the openings all around faced inward. The faces of the projecting walls were decorated with palm trees.Then he brought me into the outer court. There I saw some rooms and a pavement that had been constructed all around the court; there were thirty rooms along the pavement. It abutted the sides of the gateways and was as wide as they were long; this was the lower pavement. Then he measured the distance from the inside of the lower gateway to the outside of the inner court; it was a hundred cubits on the east side as well as on the north.Then he measured the length and width of the north gate, leading into the outer court. Its alcoves—three on each side—its projecting walls and its portico had the same measurements as those of the first gateway. It was fifty cubits long and twenty-five cubits wide. Its openings, its portico and its palm tree decorations had the same measurements as those of the gate facing east. Seven steps led up to it, with its portico opposite them. There was a gate to the inner court facing the north gate, just as there was on the east. He measured from one gate to the opposite one; it was a hundred cubits.Then he led me to the south side and I saw the south gate. He measured its jambs and its portico, and they had the same measurements as the others. The gateway and its portico had narrow openings all around, like the openings of the others. It was fifty cubits long and twenty-five cubits wide. Seven steps led up to it, with its portico opposite them; it had palm tree decorations on the faces of the projecting walls on each side. The inner court also had a gate facing south, and he measured from this gate to the outer gate on the south side; it was a hundred cubits.Then he brought me into the inner court through the south gate, and he measured the south gate; it had the same measurements as the others.Its alcoves, its projecting walls and its portico had the same measurements as the others. The gateway and its portico had openings all around. It was fifty cubits long and twenty-five cubits wide. (The porticoes of the gateways around the inner court were twenty-five cubits wide and five cubits deep.) Its portico faced the outer court; palm trees decorated its jambs, and eight steps led up to it.
Then he brought me to the inner court on the east side, and he measured the gateway; it had the same measurements as the others. Its alcoves, its projecting walls and its portico had the same measurements as the others. The gateway and its portico had openings all around. It was fifty cubits long and twenty-five cubits wide.Its portico faced the outer court; palm trees decorated the jambs on either side, and eight steps led up to it. Then he brought me to the north gate and measured it. It had the same measurements as the others,as did its alcoves, its projecting walls and its portico, and it had openings all around. It was fifty cubits long and twenty-five cubits wide.Its portico faced the outer court; palm trees decorated the jambs on either side, and eight steps led up to it. A room with a doorway was by the portico in each of the inner gateways, where the burnt offerings were washed.In the portico of the gateway were two tables on each side, on which the burnt offerings, sin offerings and guilt offerings were slaughtered.By the outside wall of the portico of the gateway, near the steps at the entrance of the north gateway were two tables, and on the other side of the steps were two tables.So there were four tables on one side of the gateway and four on the other—eight tables in all—on which the sacrifices were slaughtered. There were also four tables of dressed stone for the burnt offerings, each a cubit and a half long, a cubit and a half wide and a cubit high. On them were placed the utensils for slaughtering the burnt offerings and the other sacrifices. And double-pronged hooks, each a handbreadth long, were attached to the wall all around. The tables were for the flesh of the offerings. (Ezekial 40:1-44)
So the above text presents us with a God who seems to be all about precision when it comes to temple measurements.
However, if one were looking for a straightforward answer on the appropriate age for a female to marry and bear children. Here the bible does not give a specific age. In terms of exact precision, you will not find an answer. You will, however, get some clues as to the physical question
“Myriads, like the plants of the field I have made you, and you have increased and grown, and you have come with perfect beauty, breasts fashioned and your hair grown, but you were naked and bare. And I passed by you and saw you, and behold your time was the time of love, and I spread My skirt over you, and I covered your nakedness, and I swore to you and came into a covenant with you, says the Lord, and you were Mine.” (Ezekial 16:7-8)
I let you grow like the plants of the field; and you continued to grow up until you attained to womanhood, until your breasts became firm and your hair sprouted. You were still naked and bare when I passed by you [again] and saw that your time for love had arrived. So I spread My robe over you and covered your nakedness, and I entered into a covenant with you by oath—declares the Sovereign GOD; thus you became Mine. (Ezekial 16:7-8)
So, in the above passage, God is speaking about a betrothal to the nation of Israel. God is noting the development of breasts and hair. The hair here means public hair. It was only then that God saw that her time of love had arrived. Thus, the signs of puberty were appropriate for betrothal.
“We have a little sister, and she has no breasts. What shall we do for our sister on the day when she is spoken for?” (Song of Solomon 8:8)
Little here can mean: least, lesser, little one, smallest, one, quantity, thing, younger,
Taking her by the hand he said to her, “Talitha cumi,” which means, “Little girl, I say to you, arise.” (Mark 5:41)
Much of the discussion around age is based upon social constructs.
In the United States, you can be 18 to go to war, fight and kill another human being. However, you cannot drink a beer until you are 21.
In the United States, it sets 14 as the minimum age of employment. So they must think an individual at the age of 14 is old enough to understand contractual agreements and that if you show up and work on time you will be paid x amount.
In the United States, you legally can leave your home without parental permission.
In Australia and Singapore, the age of consent is 16, meaning that anyone above the age of 16 can legally have sexual relations with a person who is 16.
In the United States, to travel abroad one can generally be 14 or 15. If you are younger You will need a letter from a parent or guardian.
In the United States, most states make it illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to be out later than 10pm or 11pm on school nights.
Age at which someone can be tried as an adult in the United States. Some states allow minors as young as 10,12 or 13 to face adult charges.
Christians when they assail Islam do so under the pretext that one of the wives of the Blessed Prophet (saw) was prepubescent. Although they bring up age as if it is a factor. So if the individual is pubescent, then what?
Thus, any supposed argument they have against Islam collapses.
May Allah (swt) guide them out of the darkness and into the light.
May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah. May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah.
The Jews and Christians each say, “Follow our faith to be guided.” Say, “No! We follow the faith of Abraham, the upright—who was not a polytheist.” (Qur’an 2:135)
“Therefore be patient; surely the promise of Allah is true and let not those who have no certainty hold you in light estimation. (Qur’an 30:60)
﷽
Perhaps the point at which most Christians feel a sense of superiority over other faith traditions is that many of them have a sense of certainty in regard to their afterlife.
Also, to be fair to them, often it does not come from a sense of superiority but a sense of joy and relief that their sins are covered and paid for and that by accepting what they believe Christ Jesus did for them, they are safe from eternal damnation. Awaiting they are in the glorious kingdom of heaven.
Are you certain about what will happen to you in your afterlife? This is what they very often ask people of other faith traditions. The question is asked if the questioner themselves is certain.
There are several texts that a Christian can point to that give them this assurance. Now this is very important to keep in mind. This is not something intrinsic that a Christian knows; rather, it is the text that confirms their salvation!
So let us take a look at some of these texts.
“I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father ‘s hand.” (John 10:28-29)
“I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1 John 5:13)
“For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” (John 6:40)
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)
“And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:31)
Anyone who has a cursory understanding of Christianity and its many competing sects and denominations will be able to spot the flaws with the above text immediately.
That is to say, all Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God. Yet Christians themselves tell us that there are caveats to what seems to be a clear text. “That whoever believes in him.” Whoever is whoever right? Wrong!
The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, The United Pentecostal Church. The Holy Roman Church. The Greek Orthodox Church, The Jehovah’s Witness, The Southern Baptist. Reformed Baptist, The Trinitarian Pentecostal Church, Anglican/Episcopalian, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian and on and on it goes.
Many of these denominations and sects of Christianity quite often declare the others infidels or outside the body of Christ. Thus, this point alone underscores that the efficacy of “whoever believes in him” in and of itself is insufficient! There must be something more!
Let us also go back and look at this text:
“I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” (John 10:28-29)
The problem with the above text is that they and them are not defined. Do you not think that every one of those sects and denominations think that they themselves are the ones in the hand of the Father?
Not only that, but each one of those sects above has had apostates and reprobates. Some of them left one denomination for the other. . Some have left said denomination for a faith tradition outside of Christianity altogether. Some have left a belief in God altogether.
So the text quoted by Christians in isolation proves absolutely nothing. If that was the case, Muslims would be saved according to the New Testament.
“Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.” (John 5:24)
“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (John 17:3)
Muslims believe these things. So would that mean we are saved? The Christian would say no as they would go to a) either understanding of these passages in context and/or point to other passages that we do not believe in.
So coming back to the Christians.
“Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 9)
“Continue in a certain set of teaching” — This means the Christian just cannot have a simple head knowledge about supposed salvation. They must also have correct doctrines.
There are even massive disputes among them about whether one is to be immersed in water for a baptism to be acceptable. Is it enough to sprinkle water to be Christened? At what age should one be baptized? Is infant baptism correct or not? Pedobaptism vs Credobaptism. What is the formula to baptize in? Does one even need to be baptized at all?
“Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 28:19)
Some reconcile the above by stating that ‘the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit’=Jesus Christ.
“And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43)
These men were not baptized and apparently Jesus assured them of salvation.
What about people who want to convert to Christianity in the desert and there is no water? What about those who believe in water immersion, and they are in a prison where no such service is provided?
Outward signs that would tell us who a true believer of Christ Jesus is?
Are there any outward acts or signs that are not subjective that one could recognize a true believer by?
“And these signs shall follow them that believe. In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” (Matthew 16:17-18)
The problems with this understanding are manifold.
There is the Pentecostal or Charismatic movement. Among them are Oneness Pentecostals and among them are Trinitarian Pentecostals.
Each side focuses on Tongues as the initial evidence of being saved or “Filled with the Holy Ghost” after baptism.
Oneness Pentecostals reject the trinity view of Godhead and follow closely to what is called by their opponents as Modalism or Sabellianism. That is to say that sometimes God is the Father, sometimes the Son, sometimes the Holy ghost, but never all 3 simultaneously or at the same time.
Oneness Pentecostals believe in baptizing in the name of Jesus ONLY and must be baptized by a Oneness Pentecostal ordained pastor.
Regular Pentecostal people believe in the Trinity : 1 God, 3 persons living together, separately and simultaneously. They baptize” In the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost.
How is it that both sides speak in tongues if only 1 way is correct? (If the Oneness Formula is the correct one, why do trinitarian Pentecostals also speak in tongues?)
Each side will quote proof text against the other!
Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way. (1 Corinthians 12:29-31)
And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve. (1 Corinthians 11:15-16)
In the above text we as Muslims would say that there are those who are apparently righteous (dhahir) and their righteousness is not haqiqah (real or true).
Here are some more texts that Pentecostals and Charismatics and those also known as Holy Rollers would use against each other.
“For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Matthew 24:24)
The above text is compounded by the problem that no Christian really knows if any of them are of the elect or not! They only presuppose this by thinking their interpretation of scripture, understanding of scripture or outward manifestation (prophecies, driving out demons and performing miracles) makes them of the elect.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (Matthew 7:21-23)
The above text has to relate to Christians! Or at the very least, those who in all earnest believe themselves to be Christians. There are no Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Taoists, Shinto, Jews or Muslims that go around and do such things.
On a personal note, one of our team members has personally known people who were Charismatic Pentecostals that spoke in tongues, and were, for the most part, trying their utmost to be godly people.
Yet, they beat their spouses, remarried after divorce, and the big one—fornication, fornication, fornication! How is one who is filled with the Holy Spirit drawn to sin?
What about the gifts of the Holy Spirit?
“The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.” (Galatians 5:22-23)
This is also subjective. As you will find Christians and even non-Christians who exhibit all these traits and qualities.
The most hated verses of the entire New Testament to Christians. Separating the wheat from the chafe.
Now, we are going to quote to you some text of the New Testament that deeply troubles Christians. By Christians we mean all of them. Every shade, stripe, sect or denomination.
That is because this text is the real dividing line. This text does not mince words. This text gets as close as one can get to knowing if they have the spirit of God within them.
Now, let us think about this. Let us, for the sake of argument, agree with all the various Christian understandings of who or what the Holy Spirit is.
The Holy Spirit is God himself, as the third person of the Trinity.
The Holy Spirit is God’s active force (Jehovah’s Witness)
The Holy Spirit is God (as Jesus), as Oneness Pentecostals believe.
Let’s just take all that on board.
“For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Jude 1: 4-5)
Now ponder that. A Christian can now walk in righteousness and live a holy life (not by their own account so that they may boast). The reason that they can walk in righteousness and live a holy life is so that they are born of God! They have the Holy Spirit (God himself, Jesus himself, or God’s active force) indwelling in them!
Example:
“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.” (Matthew 6:24)
That is the benchmark! Now let us come to that nightmare text we were talking about.
“Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister. (1 John 3:7-10)
POWERFUL!!!
As Muslims reading this we only have to say Allahu Akbar! Because there are among Muslims those who think that they can continue to engage in sins and even major sins and die without repenting to Allah, and they will be among the people of paradise!
So read those words, dear Christian! When you molest your child, defraud your frock, embellish funds from the Church, look upon a woman (or man) with lust, marry again after being divorced, are a racist, cheat people, lie, are gluttonous, are greedy, lazy, envious, prideful, hypocrite, vain, unforgiving, seeking obscenities, slander, involved in sedition, bribery, embezzle funds, evade taxes, palm reading, psychic networks, astrologers, and those who believe in astrology, watcher of pornography, adulterer, fornicator, gambler, neglect prayer, or are bitter you are involved in sin and the Holy Spirit does not dwell with in you PERIOD!
“But as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, “Be holy, for I am holy.” (1 Peter 1:15-16)
All those above sins mentioned if any Christian commits a single one of them, they cannot be considered holy.
In fact, Paul wrote to Christian Churches with the following strong warning.
“The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:19-21)
The above letter is written to a Church filled with Christians!
“If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.” (Hebrews 10:26-27)
Oh, Christians! Know that your theology is built upon a mountain of sand!
You are only righteous in accordance with your ego! Fear God! Fear the fire Christians! Flee to God! Turn in repentance! Accept the truth!
Not to be haughty (May Allah protect us), but this also applies to us as Muslims.
“So that you neither grieve over what you have missed nor boast over what He has granted you. For Allah does not like whoever is arrogant, boastful.”(Qur’an 57:23)
We have said it before, and we will say it again. Genesis chapter 3 is the only thing that stands between Christianity and Islam.
Let us examine the concept of salvation and the assurances of it in light of a debate between two Protestant Christians and in light of a debate between a Christian and a Muslim.
The Predestination Debate: James White vs Michael Brown
@ 10:40 “When some determinately refuses him, then God will righteously judge that person and even give them over to unbelief and delusion. And even in that sense, harden them in their sin by giving them over to it.”—Michael Brown
Prima Qur’an comments:
If you look at what Michael is saying. it can be supported by (1 John 3:7-10)
That is, those people who claim they have the Holy Spirit and commit any type of sin at all. Those people can be described by Michael Brown as those who are given over to unbelief and delusion.
“And for this cause, God shall send them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” (2 Thessalonians 2:11)
The Christian believes in a type of God that will send delusion upon people to cause them to believe in lies.
One has to wonder, given that most Christian denominations and sects do believe that Jesus is the son of God, and their redeemer and means to salvation, what did those other Christian sects and denominations (deemed to be heretical and hell-bound) do or not do to put in a state of delusion to the point of believing in lies?
@55:20 “The universe that Dr. White holds to and please correct me if I’m wrong on understanding what you believe or overstating it or misstating it. Instead of God grieving over the rape and torture, slow torture death of a little child whose than buried alive and no one ever going to know about it until the judgement seat of Christ. Instead of God grieving over it and saying I never intended for that. That is absolutely contrary to my will, Dr. White said God ordained it. When he created the universe, he ordained in his decree that someone would do that, and he takes glory in that one way or another.” -Michael Brown
@1:02:15 “Ah my brother, you’re so close to the kingdom.” -James White
James White is making this statement towards Michael Brown. Then James was interrupted by God, who decreed that there be some sound distortion the moment after he said it.
James unveils the dark truth of Calvinist interpretations of the Bible. In fact, this view was refuted by the Ibadi long ago. Calvinism in Christianity is Jabriyya among Muslims.
It is a view that turns the Creator into an unjust, capacious deity that does a sort of Eeny, meeny, miny, moe with his creations.
@1:05:07 “When he said in his opening statement if he calls us to repent, he enables us to repent. He calls everyone to repent. Acts chapter 17. God commands man everywhere to repent. The times of this ignorance God overlooked, but now He commands all men everywhere to repent.” (Acts 17:30)Does that mean he enables? What does enablement mean? What’s the nature of this enabling? Is it a partial regeneration? Romans chapter 8 says those according to the Spirit cannot do what is pleasing before God. “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. If so, be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” (Romans 8:7-9) Is repentance pleasing towards God? You better believe it is. So you cannot be according to the flesh and do what is pleasing to God. Regeneration has to come first. So is everyone regenerated? Of course not! So if he commands man everywhere to repent. Then he must regenerate everyone to fulfill the statement. ‘If he calls us to repent, he enables us to repent.’ That’s some kind of general prevenient grace, I guess, but that concept simply isn’t Biblical, and it simply does not work.” -James White
Prima Qur’an comments.
What does it say about the justice of God: “but now He commands all men everywhere to repent,” but then He does not enable all men to do so?
“So is everyone regenerated? Of course not! So if he commands man everywhere to repent. Then he must regenerate everyone to fulfill the statement.”
The bizarre ‘logic’, if we want to call it, is as follows.
God has predetermined before the foundation of the world that he will send his Holy Spirit to regenerate human beings so that they may recognize that Christ is the Lord.
“Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:3)
2. Only those who are regenerated by the Holy Spirit can call Jesus Lord.
3. Because God calls all men to repent but does not enable them to do means that God does indeed want some people to burn in eternal hellfire without even giving them the equal “opportunity” he gives others. We use “opportunity” because none of the Calvinists can tell us on what basis God chooses one over the other. The reason why we used the word “opportunity” in brackets is because a well-known theologian and scholar of their tradition himself quoted a senior teacher as calling this act: “holy rape of the soul!”
In this view of God, it truly is unconditional love because there are no conditions placed upon man and nothing reciprocal either. Rape is a form of unconditional love because it is not based upon mutual consent.
So there are two very massive differences when it comes to the concept of divine love and divine justice in this understanding of Christianity and the true understanding of Islam.
Allah does not force us to love him. Allah has enabled humanity to love him.
We human beings have the ability (given to us by God, each one of us with the mental capacity and faculty) to love God. We can reach out to God. In fact, we bet there is someone reading this article right now because you have something beautiful inside of you. That is right! We said it, something beautiful and amazing and something that needs to be harnessed, trained, and nurtured so it becomes even more beautiful. Right now, out of the thousands of websites you could be looking at, the million and one things you could be doing, you are here.
Why? Because you have a longing for God!
In Islam, you have the ability to reach out to God, and God will reach out to you.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (saw) said, “Allah says: ‘I am just as My slave thinks I am, (i.e. I am able to do for him what he thinks I can do for him) and I am with him if He remembers Me. If he remembers Me in himself, I too, remember him in Myself; and if he remembers Me in a group of people, I remember him in a group that is better than they; and if he comes one span nearer to Me, I go one cubit nearer to him; and if he comes one cubit nearer to Me, I go a distance of two outstretched arms nearer to him; and if he comes to Me walking, I go to him running.’ “
In Christianity, you are on the road to hell unless the capricious deity of Calvin randomly chooses to love you, and then he will make you love him!
Huge difference!
“Say (O Muhammed): “If you do love Allah, follow me: Allah will love you and forgive you your sins: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 3:31)
In Islam, humanity has love instilled in them! In Islam, Love is a dynamic relationship between Allah and humanity. We have love instilled in us, we are not born without love. We human beings develop very deep bonds with our siblings and our children and parents.
“But ask forgiveness of your Lord, and turn unto Him (in repentance): For my Lord is indeed full of mercy and loving-tender kindness.” (Qur’an 11:90)
When confronted with the cruel Calvinist deity, we are dealing with a sadomasochistic entity that is capricious and whimsical when dealing with his creation.
The only critique (and a shallow one at that) the Calvinist can hurl at Islam is the following:
“Allah has enabled humanity to have a synergist relationship with him. In such a system, Muslims can boast of their good deeds!
That is right! Allah has created human beings with the innate power and ability to resist evil and to submit to Allah.
It is true that there are Muslims who boast of their good deeds, their achievements, their awards, their spouses, their children, but this is also true of Christians as well.
The question is, does Allah encourage us to be boastful?
“And the servants of the Merciful are those who walk on the earth in humility….” (Qur’an 25:63)
“Allah does not love the arrogant and the boastful.” (Qur’an 4:36)
For Allah does not like whoever is arrogant, boastful.” (Qur’an 57:23)
2. The second major point of difference between Islam and Christianity.
Do Christians even believe in a God who is fair and just?
“This is what your hands sent ahead, and God is never unjust to the servants.” (Qur’an 22:10)
“Whoever does good, it is for his own soul, and whoever does evil, it is against it; and your Lord is not in the least unjust to the servants.” (Qur’an 41:46)
However, in Christianity we are all God’s enemies! Every human baby born is an enemy of God! What a twisted doctrine! It is only when God forces you (reprograms you from an enemy to a friend) that you become this automaton that loves him.
If any Christian (Assembly of God, Church of Christ, Methodist) comes up to a Calvinist Christian basking and glowing and talking about how they love Jesus Christ and are filled with the love of Jesus, the Calvinist will give them a very cold look and a very stern stare. “Who are these pathetic human beings who think that they are capable of love?”
The Calvinist shivers and withers at the thought of it!
“For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!” (Romans 5:10)
Basically, you’re an enemy of God, and you’re on a collision course with death (if you think we are overexaggerating this example, all you have to do is click on the following link:
“Now, Mark Driscoll had a good point on this argument. He likened irresistible grace to a time his daughter was running towards the road about to get hit by a truck. He snatched her out of the way. He did not respect her will. That’s a better analogy.”
Basically, right now you have free will. Your will in this worldview is to always choose evil and rebellion. That’s right! No matter how many times you donate to charity, or you have given your blood or kidney to save someone. No matter how many times you are disgusted with the violence and agony and suffering of the world, you are just rotten to the very core! You’re fundamentally evil in nature! If you don’t like it that’s just tough! The reason you don’t like it is because of your rebellion against a sovereign God!
So what does this sovereign, cruel, capricious deity of Calvinism do? He “does not respect your will,” as the Christian above so eloquently puts it.
God forces you to love him, he changes you, generates you, smashes your will, spiritually rapes you, reconciles you.
However, in Christianity (Calvin’s version), God is very unjust and unfair. God does not give everyone an equal chance. Oh, no!
The favorite proof text of the Calvinist?
So here is the crux upon which their devious and vile doctrine rests, Romans 9:10-21 You would do well to know this text when dealing with Calvinists!
“Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ”Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?”(Romans 9:10-21)
Notice something about the above text highlighted in red. God had a purpose for the children before they had done anything good or bad, the text says.
Notice that the author of the text also recognizes that there are arguments against the position. Why does God blame us for people who resist his will?
Basically, it comes down to a problem of JUSTICE!!! Where is God’s justice when God, in his “positive will”, actively regenerates some and in his “negative will” he passes over the non-elect?
Christians go on and on about where the justice of God lives in Islam! That’s rich! That is very rich coming from people who believe in doctrines like this!
Where is the justice of God in not giving everyone the same chance and ability to be saved?
Only a person who has a very dark heart, or holds the divine in low esteem could even fathom that such a doctrine is even remotely a modicum of God’s justice!
So what do the Calvinists do?
What do the Reformed Baptists do when they are confronted by this monstrosity of a doctrine?
Write books, of course! Coin phrases and theological terminology. That they feel will help “explain” (read: dress up) the utter ugliness and darkness that this doctrine really is.
In fact, if truth be told in this system, Jesus’ blood is absolutely meaningless. It is a veiled gnostic attack upon the very heart of Christian teachings of atonement.
It is not the blood of Jesus who saves, it is the Holy Spirit that regenerates. The blood of Jesus was not for anyone except for God. It was his own stage show, his own circus act for himself! To satisfy his own wrath, he was already determined to save!
Talk about beyond weird and sadomasochistic does not even come close to the type of perversity that this doctrine is.
Subhan’Allah! Praise be to Allah who has given humanity Islam! Praise be to Allah, who, by the tongues of Christ Jesus the son of Mary, Moses, Aaron, David, Abraham and Muhammed have come to teach us that this is not the way!
“R.C. Sproul, in his book Chosen by God pg. 142-43 gives tells us what Equal Ultimacy is and how it does not fit into the Reformed view of Double Predestination:”
“There are different views of double predestination. One of these is so frightening that many shun the term altogether, lest their view of the doctrine be confused with the scary one. This is called the equal ultimacy view. Equal ultimacy is based on a concept of symmetry. It seeks a complete balance between election and reprobation. The key idea is this: Just as God intervenes in the lives of the elect to create faith in their hearts, so God equally intervenes in the lives of the reprobate to create or work unbelief in their hearts. The idea of God’s actively working unbelief in the hearts of the reprobate is drawn from biblical statements about God hardening people’s hearts. Equal ultimacy is not the Reformed or Calvinist view of predestination. Some have called it ‘hyper-Calvinism.’ I prefer to call it ‘sub-Calvinism’ or, better yet, ‘anti-Calvinism.’ Though Calvinism certainly has a view of double predestination, the double predestination it embraces is not one of equal ultimacy. To understand the Reformed view of the matter, we must pay close attention to the crucial distinction between positive and negative decrees of God. Positive has to do with God’s active intervention in the hearts of the elect. Negative has to do with God’s passing over the non-elect. The Reformed view teaches that God positively or actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to insure their salvation. The rest of mankind God leaves to themselves. He does not create unbelief in their hearts. That unbelief is already there. He does not coerce them to sin. They sin by their own choices. In the Calvinist view, the decree of election is positive; the decree of reprobation is negative. Hyper-Calvinism’s view of double predestination may be called positive-positive predestination. Orthodox Calvinism’s view may be called positive-negative predestination.
Prima Qur’an comments:
Now R.C Sproul is supposed to be a person who understands theology.
So God has decreed that he will act to save some. God has also decreed that he will not act to save the rest. Notice that R.C Sproul says, “The idea of God’s actively working unbelief in the hearts of the reprobate is drawn from biblical statements about God hardening people’s hearts.”
Well, would you imagine that! The whole idea of God actively working unbelief in the hearts of the reprobate is drawn from biblical statements! Who would have guessed! However, what R.C Sproul also conveniently leaves out is the fact that Calvinists believe that God creates all souls! If all souls, by their very nature, sin, then God creates souls that sin. The amount of sin that they do and all that will germinate from it is from God! In fact, rather than saying that God is actively working to create unbelief in people’s hearts, the truth of the matter is that, in Christian theology, God has created human beings who, from the outset, from the very beginning of their creation are unbelievers!
It is only by his capricious, tyrannical whim that he smashes their will and makes them friends rather than keeping them as enemies whom he created to be enemies.
Some Calvinist Christians will read this and scoff and say! Rubbish! Nonsense! Blasphemy!
And we simply raise an eyebrow at them, put our hands over our mouths, give a slight cough and say….”Ever heard of the doctrine of original sin?”
Anyone?
So what kind of nature is man born with? What kind of nature did we inherit from Adam? What kind of flesh, by default mode is supposedly a loving God going to send a soul into?
A soul that, by default mode is on a trajectory to hell!
Remember the above text in Romans 9 says, Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
There you have it!
Or let us use the more flowery language of the New Living Translation.
So we know that it is his will that one will be made for decoration and one for garbage!
Notice that R.C Sproul says the following:
“Though Calvinism certainly has a view of double predestination….”
So what part of pre-destination needs to be explained here? If it is double predestination and God has a positive decree and a negative decree, then there you have it!
There is no justice in such a doctrine! None! It makes God out to be a tyrannical overlord who only makes people love him. Love does not come from human beings. The human being does not respond to God. The human being is made into an automaton.
Those who are unfortunate enough to become automatons are destined to an eternal life in hellfire for ever-lasting Glory to God the Father! Amen!
All this from a creator who willfully places human souls into a machine that is on a trajectory for hell!
In Calvinism, God is not just. God is the Most Unjust. God’s justice is arbitrary. Contrary to those theologians today who know you will be troubled by this idea, why don’t they do what the Apostle Paul did?
It is not sufficient for R.C Sproul, John Piper and others to allow God’s Holy Spirit to speak when he supposedly inspired Paul to respond by saying, “But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”
Instead, they prefer to write whole books that try and explain away what obviously was not very clear to the masses!
“For God so loved the world…” Wrong! As one Christian speaker who is on the opposite side of this doctrine noted:
“Modern Calvinist circles seem to be filled with guys who insist that Christ’s death had no benefit whatsoever for anyone other than the elect and God’s only desire with regard to the reprobate is to damn them period. Too many Calvinists embrace the doctrine of limited atonement. They finally see the truth of it, but then they think, “Oh, that’s that.” Christ died for the elect and, in no sense are there any universal benefits in the atonement, so the atonement is limited to the elect in every sense, and it has no relevance whatsoever to the non-elect.” -Leighton Flowers
This is the real dilemma for Christians. A capricious deity that randomly chooses without reason or rhyme (only known to himself) who will be the object of his salvation and who will be the object of his wrath).
Or the admission by the Christian that humanity in some capacity can call out to God. That God gives people choice. A type of synergism. That there are people who are awed by Creation and thus the Creator and seek the face of God.
Either way, Islam comes in as a crushing wave that overwhelms them both!
When we peel back the thin veneer of assurance, what we find are spacious doctrines and a people who often lead vacuous lives.
Let us continue on with the debate: The Predestination Debate – James White vs Michael Brown
@1:14:45 Listen to the cross-examination between James White and Michael Brown.
@1:14:49 “Alright and because we are respectful gentleman I will not give a 4 minute, 59 second question. Nor will he give a 4 minute, 59 second answer. So let’s just start out a practical level in terms of election, predestination, Um. I’m 100% sure that I am a child of God, my sins are forgiven. If I was to die right now I’d be in his presence. I assume you feel the same. Therefore, since you know that you are an elected predestined. Can you say that you know that it is absolutely(im) possible for you to ever fall away?” -Michael Brown.
“Well, you’re confusing I think creaturely categories of knowledge and divine categories of knowledge. I would take infallibility and infallible knowledge as a divine category. So, in the sense that the Holy Spirit testifies to me of my sonship as certain as a person can be at that point, given our uh human limitation Yes. But I differentiate between any kind of making my certainty the same kind of level of certainty that we have in scripture.” -James White
Michael Brown: So than I have as a non Calvinist the greater assurance than you do.” James White: “I don’t believe so.” Michael Brown: “Ah, But it says we can know. John says I write these things so that you can know. So you know you have eternal life?”
James White: “Well again.” Michael Brown: “But you could be deceived possibly.”
“Remember what 1 John chapter 5 says Well I (catches himself) The fact is Mike you and I are both old enough now to know many people who used to stand with us in the church, and who made those statements to us…. “-James White
Michael Brown: “And they fell away.“
James White: “And we believed them.”
James White: “And they fell away.”
Michael Brown: “Yes”
James White: “And so the question…(cut off)
Michael Brown: “My theology allows for that.”
James White: “So does mine. They went out from us so that it might be shown they were not truly of us.”-
Michael Brown: “Some that’s the case.”
James White: “Exactly.”
“Those are the ones that are being described. “And That’s why there’s warning after warning. Don’t harden your heart.”-Michael Brown. “Exactly.”-James White. “And we are partakers if we continue to the end.”-Michael Brown
“So we agree on perseverance.” -Michael Brown
“Exactly.”-James White.
“So your saying your sure but not God 100% sure?“-Michael Brown.
“I’m not divine! So I have to recognizes that that that as far as the Holy Spirit testifies to my heart yes! And that in 1 John 5 by the way says that you may know. What. I’ve wrote these things to you. What were those things? That you love the brethren, that you walk in light etc. etc.” -James White
“Right right So we have the fruit of it. So we have the fruit of it. Therefore the warnings the warnings are real to you?” -Michael Brown.
“Yes they are.”-James White.
“Ok, fine fine that’s important alright.”-Michael Brown
Prima Qur’an comments.
First, we found interesting Michael Brown’s not so subtle dig at James White’s debate tactics.
Brown stated:
“Alright and because we are respectful gentleman I will not give a 4 minute, 59 second question. Nor will he give a 4 minute, 59 second answer“-Michel Brown.
What Brown is speaking about is, during what is called ‘cross -fire’, James can often milk the clock of his opponent by giving a lengthy response that takes time away from the questioner to press him.
“I would take infallibility and infallible knowledge as a divine category. So in the sense that the Holy Spirit testifies to me of my sonship as certain as a person can be at that point given our uh human limitation Yes. But I differentiate between any kind of making my certainty the same kind of level of certainty that we have in scripture.”-James White.
Prima Qur’an comments:
Doesn’t a Christian deserve 100% certainty over ‘as certain as a person can be’ ? Does that very response completely blow the lid off the idea of assurance of salvation? You have to wonder why wouldn’t God give that infallible knowledge to a Christian?
Recall what we stated at the entry of this blog post.
There are several textd that a Christian can point to that give them this assurance. Now this is very important to keep in mind. This is not something intrinsic that a Christian knows; rather, it is the text that confirms their salvation!
“The fact is Mike you and I are both old enough now to know many people who used to stand with us in the church, and who made those statements to us.” -James White
Prima Qur’an comments: What James says is quite true. There are indeed those who call themselves Christians. Perhaps even those who are calling Muslims to Christianity right now who actually may not even be real Christians (according to James & Michael). They could be out there in Hyde Park, online and in other places saying and confessing the exact same things that James White and Michael Brown say and confess. Then behold! One day, those same people have left a particular Christian denomination for one deemed to be heretical. Or that person left Christianity for a non-Christian tradition. Or that Christian renounced faith altogether!
“So your saying your sure but not God 100% sure?“-Michael Brown.
“I’m not divine! So I have to recognizes that that that as far as the Holy Spirit testifies to my heart yes! And that in 1 John 5 by the way says that you may know. What. I’ve wrote these things to you. What were those things? That you love the brethren, that you walk in light etc. etc.” -James White
“Right right So we have the fruit of it. So we have the fruit of it. Therefore the warnings the warnings are real to you?:-Michael Brown.
Prima Qur’an comments:
So Brown presses James about whether he can be 100% certain that he is saved, or elected and will never fall away from faith. It is odd that Christians who claim to be regenerated from the Holy Spirit (presumably God the third person) cannot give a more convincing response.
James again quotes scripture (which hundreds of other denominations that he feels are heretical also quote).
James then appeals to ‘fruits of the spirit’ which, as mentioned above, are also found in hundreds of other denominations that both James and Michael would feel are heretical. Those same fruits are also found in non-Christian people.
So there is really nothing apparent that would set James and his sect apart from any other type of Christian denomination that would rely upon the same evidence.
@1:19:25 There is an exchange between James and Michael about whether a Christian should praise God over a child of theirs that would be damned to hell. Michael got the better of this exchange, of which James tacitly agreed. That is because, as Michael noted, if everything is predestined by God, and God is good, then nothing he does is other than good and is praiseworthy. Including allowing a believing Christian’s son or daughter to burn in hell for all eternity.
Prima Qur’an comments:
This may be seen as underhanded by Michael Brown, especially if he is aware of the friction between James White (pictured right) and his estranged sister Patricia Bonds. Patricia had converted to the Roman Catholic Church. She also writes about the claim that her father molested her. Source: (https://catholicconvert.com/patty-bonds-her-father-her-mother-and-her-brother-james-white/)
So what Michael is pressing James on here is that if God decrees all things and predetermines them, and God is good, and we must rejoice in all things God does…. then well…..you, the reader, follow the logic.
@1:50:51 There was a very good question from the audience.
“If the atonement is particular rather than conditional, is it the case that the elect have their penalty paid for them before they were born? If so, in virtue of what are they ever under the wrath?“
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.” (John 3:36)
You can listen to James response.
@1:51:07 “Yeah, that’s a very good question. But uh, its uh Biblically answered uhh we experience what God has provided for us in eternity in time. We are time-bound creatures. And so, yes uh in our union with Christ we die with him. That’s the great confession of all every believer. I’ve been crucified with Christ nevertheless I live. Well, when was I crucified with Christ? At the time of my conversion? Or was I not united with him in his death? Uh, the idea that we somehow unite ourselves to him. I think is doesn’t’ make much sense. But we experience all this in time. So, while God has decreed, according to Ephesians chapter 1, that salvation that is ours there is a point in time, early in life for those who are really blessed, maybe later in life uh for others for God’s purposes that they may go through those things so that they can be ministers unto others. But at God’s intent, intended time the Spirit of God brings spiritual life we are uh given the gifts of faith and repentance and we than experience that which God intended from eternity past and procured for us Not just in the sacrifice of Christ but even in all his redemptive works that he did with the people of Israel before that, which brings about the sacrifice of Christ. So, uh it is it’s a category error to say that If we are all united with Christ in his death, therefore that means that we’ve never been children of wrath, or that we umm until or generation or somehow uhh free from uhh the penalty of sin or any of those types of things. That is ignoring the fact that God can be eternal and we are in time and therefore he decrees when in time we are going to experience that which he has decreed for us.” -James White.
Prima Qur’an comments:
We have watched enough of James White to know that when he isn’t certain how to respond, he in respond with one of two ways or a combo. 1) Fill the response with incoherent ramblings. 2) State the person is making a ‘category error’ or a combination of both.
We found his response wanting. If God had already pre-ordained before the beginning of time whom he would regenerate, in what real sense would such individuals ever be under the wrath of God?
We believe the questioner also wanted to take aim at the “ordo salutis” position of what is known as primitive Baptist or “hard-shell” Baptist. Namely, the idea that one could be in Christ as an unrepentant individual. In other words, an unbeliever united with Christ. That regeneration preceded repentance.
NNow there are textsthat could assist the idea of one being regenerated by the Holy Spirit and not having faith. But then to call this person an unbeliever (as they have not professed anything) would be a stretch.
“For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb.” (Luke 1:15)
In what real sense can the wrath of God be upon John? The following text cannot be true in any real sense unless the Christian states that this is the case in general.
“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)
“No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. (1 John 3:9)
John was born of God, so in what sense is a sinner and/or in what sense is the wrath of God upon him?
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I sanctified you; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. Alas, Sovereign Lord,” I said, “I do not know how to speak; I am too young.” But the Lord said to me, “Do not say, ‘I am too young.’ You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you,” declares the Lord. Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “I have put my words in your mouth.” (Jeremiah 1:5-9)
God says he sanctified Jeremiah even in his mothers womb. Is someone going to come along and say that Jeremiah is the object of God’s wrath? Or that Jeremiah sinned?
As regards using the idea that either Jeremiah or John the Baptist were regenerated without the ability to declare faith from the point of view of a Muslim is an argument from silence.
Thus, Jeremiah, John the Baptist could have all had prescience at birth.
Evanescent Grace -Christian James White debates Muslim Abdullah Kunde.
Title of the debate: The Assurance of Salvation In Islam And Christianity
When we knew that Abdullah Kunde was going to debate James White and knowing that Pastor White is a Calvinist we pointed out to Abdullah the position of Evanescent Grace.
What was shocking to usis that James White was ignorant of the terminology. We do not know if the showcasing of his ignorance also contributes to the fact that his website does not link to the debate. Or it maybe that those who hosted the debate did not feel James did so well.
Allah knows best.
WHAT IS EVANESCENT GRACE?
Evanescent-something that gradually vanishes.
1. I am aware it seems unaccountable to some how faith is attributed to the reprobate, seeing that it is declared by Paul to be one of the fruits of election; and yet the difficulty is easily solved: for though none are enlightened into faith, and truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, with the exception of those who are fore-ordained to salvation, yet experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. Should it be objected, that believers have no stronger testimony to assure them of their adoption, I answer, that though there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith, yet the elect alone have that full assurance which is extolled by Paul, and by which they are enabled to cry, Abba, Father. Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only for ever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate. Meanwhile, believers are taught to examine themselves carefully and humbly, lest carnal security creep in and take the place of assurance of faith. We may add, that the reprobate never have any other than a confused sense of grace, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only, applying it by special faith to their use. Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy. In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.
This is extremely unnerving and terrifying. How do Christians ‘know’ for sure that they are saved and are not just under some false sense of security that God has put into them as mentioned by John Calvin? Why would God do that any way?
Would people who have sincerely repented, turned to God and searched for truth and endured hardships their whole life be given a false sense of security by God?
In fact, Abdullah Kunde brought up this excellent point about Simon the Magi you can see in the video below (quality not so great).
“Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, “This man is rightly called the Great Power of God.” They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery. But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw. When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”Then Simon answered, “Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me.” After they had further proclaimed the word of the Lord and testified about Jesus, Peter and John returned to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel in many Samaritan villages. (Acts 8:9-25)
Now this above text is all kinds of interesting. We know that Simon was one of the elect of God because no one can believe unless, they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. This is not a case of simple head knowledge or knowledge of the apparent. We know this because the one instructing Luke to write Acts is none other than the Holy Spirit, according to Christians! Surely the Holy Spirit would know if Simon believed or was not correct? So Simon was one of the elect. He believed and was baptized.
However, this text is full of problems such as:
“because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” Yet, the previous text says: “But when they believed Philip” & “they were baptized, both men and women.”
Peter, who is one of the elect, according to Christians says to his fellow elected Christian: “Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you .”
The very fact that the Elect Peter, who is disturbing the Holy Spirit like there is no tomorrow, says to the fellow Elect Simon, “That he may forgive you” is proof clear as day that the possibility was there for Simon to lose his election.
The Elect Peter also says to the Elect Simon: “For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”
That was the end that we heard of Simon.
They couldn’t have believed unless the Holy Spirit had already came to them.
@2:27 Abdullah Kunde brought up evanescent grace.
@1:23 Abdullah points out that James has yet to interact with his question on evanescent faith.
@5:45 Again brother Abdullah Kunde presses James to answer his questions on evanescent faith.
@6:06 Brother Abdullah Kunde ask: “Does faith come before or after salvation”?
“Are mentally retarded individuals are they granted salvation because are they granted the ability to come to faith; or are they granted salvation at the very beginning and then faith after that?”
“What about children?” “Children that do not reach the age of reason if they die are they granted salvation?”
These are very excellent questions given by brother Abdullah Kunde.
@7:52 Again Abdullah ask about Evanescent faith to James White.
@10:07 “ok thank you very much, uh the reason I didn’t respond to uh what Abdullah said is I’m not sure what evanescent faith is. He just defined it as pretend faith. Uh I I’m sorry it’s not terminology I’ve ever heard of before. Uh there are certainly are people who have false Faith. There are people who have faith in a false Jesus, a false gospel.”-James White
@13:42 Abdullah Kunde is enlightening James White about the position of evanescent faith by quoting Calvin’s Institutes.
Prima Qur’an comments:
“I’m not sure what evanescent faith is. He just defined it as pretend faith. Uh I I’m sorry it’s not terminology I’ve ever heard of before. “-James White
We are very, very surprised that James White expressed ignorance over the terminology of what Brother Abdullah Kunde gave.
“@1:47 “Ah well very briefly I said I didn’t address uh mentally retarded individuals, children these are huge subjects. The scripture does not address these issues. It simply tells us that God will be just. and that the judge of all the Earth will do right.”-James White.
Yet Islam does address these points. Islam has very clear nass (text) that answer these questions.
“Allah does not burden a soul beyond that it can bear.” (Qur’an 2:286)
The above text is actually in regard to the sacred law.
It was narrated from ‘Ali bin Abu Talib that:
the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “The Pen is lifted from the minor, the insane person and the sleeper.”
So, when we dream, we may do certain acts in our dreams that would be impermissible in sacred law. We are not held accountable for it. Islam addresses this. Does Christianity?
The case of children.
Minor children, until they become mukhalif (responsible) exhibited signs such as distinction between right and wrong, abstract thinking etc. Until then, they have not been held accountable. Even if they are raised by non-Muslims. They die, they enter into the Mercy of Allah. Islam addresses this. Christianity is not cohesive on the issue.
This also circles around further disputes about what one must do/believe in order to obtain salvation. For example, the differences between credobaptism and pedobaptism. Credobaptis (those who say a person must confess a faith in Christ) vs Pedobaptist (not necessary to confess a faith in Christ). The Credobaptists have not demonstrated that the Bible teaches that professing believers, and no one else, are to be baptized. Personally, in this debate, the Pedobaptist (Orthodox, Catholic, Presbyterian, Anglican and others that practice baby baptism are more consistent with the doctrine of original sin. Babies die—they fell in Adam. Whereas the only consistent Protestants that can reject Pedobaptism are the Churches of Christ (not Mormons) — these Churches of Christ are also called ‘Campbelites’.
Here is the syllogism:Campbellites agree with Augustine that baptism literally washes away sin;Campbellites disagree with Augustine that baptism is for infants;Therefore, Campbellites conclude that infants are not affected by original sin, but are rather born innocent.
Thus, on who is baptized, they are the most biblically consistent Protestants.
The case of those not in full use of mental faculties (the insane, the mentally challenged).
Islam addresses this. Does Christianity?
The concept of eternal security, preservation or perseverance of saints has been unsettling for many Christians. This is because many of them witnessed people who believed as they believed, said as they said, witnessed as they witnessed, and bore fruit as they bore fruit and yet these very people left Christianity.
Calvin does distinguish between the graces experienced by the saved versus the evanescent grace experienced by the confused damned. The saved get the real thing, while the damned lay hold “of the shadow rather than the substance.” In other words, if the saved are drinking Coke, the damned are drinking Diet Coke. But since neither the saved nor the damned have ever had the other kind, and all the external characteristics are the same, there’s no way of knowing which you’re drinking.
One extremely distraught Christian wrote: “So here is where I’m hung up. There have been Christians who surpass myself by any measure or rubric that I could use for comparison. And yet some of these have since fallen away. Any comfort I have in regard to not falling away, these former(?) Christians would also have had. But since they have fallen away, the comfort they felt should not have been comforting. The assurance that they felt should not have been assuring.”
“I was wondering how the doctrine of assurance is assuring to Calvinists, knowing that others have seemingly fallen away. I’m not sure how else to word it.”
“My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.” (John 10:27-29)
Thus, the Christian tells us that the Shephard choose the sheep. The sheep do not choose the Shephard. Though this is not a good analogy because of the following text:
“He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)
Did the shepherd do a poor job as to lose the sheep or did the sheep simply not obey?
The problem, and in actuality, the very real and very sad irony of someone quoting the above text as some proof for a doctrine of the assurance of salvation, is as follows.
Of course, the Shephard knows the sheep, and the sheep recognizes the Shephard. However, the sheep cannot even affirm if they are the Shephard’s sheep to begin with. Therefore, they cannot know if the Shephard will keep them. It does not get more uncertain than this.
JESUS WAS ONLY SENT TO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.
Jesus when speaking about his people , those saved, those
“Know that the Lord, he is God! It is he who made us, and we are his ;we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.” (Psalm 100:3)
“He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)
“Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” (Luke 19:9-10)
“You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.” (John 4:22)
“My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.” (John 10:27-29)
“While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.” (John 17:12)
“Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (John 6:70)
Prima-Qur’an comments:
Everyone is in agreement that the terminology ‘them’, ‘they’ and ‘those’ are not a reference to the whole of humanity but to a specific group of people. They are numbered. What is the evidence to suggest that John 10: 27-29 is not simply a reference to the 12 disciples themselves?
Where is the evidence that when Jesus used the terminology ‘them’, ‘they’ are a reference to a Motley Crue of Christians from every tribe and people?
“They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” (1 John 2:19)
So often some Christians say about those who left Christianity, well, “they were never really Christian to begin with.” But the problem with that type of thinking is that no one can truly know if they are that type of Christian (i.e. true) until they die!
What has terrified the Christian is that they said the whole reason for a redeemer is that God demands 100% perfection. So let’s get this right. God calls all men to repent. However, this God has given the ability to some to repent and not others. But even those he has regenerated and given the ability to repent have to now also be 100% perfect.
“Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister. (1 John 3:7-10)
You will never commit a single sin. The moment you do. Voilà! You can know that you are not one of the saints.
One of the preachers of this above doctrine is a man named R. C Sproul. Here he is showing utter disdain for another Christian for stating that as a Christian she does not drink. This Holy Spirit that dwells inside him was about to tempt him to drink some Double Scotch on the Rocks. “That’ll show her.” I guess he was thinking as such.
This preacher, R.C Sproul has a son, R.C Sproul Jr. who is known in his community as a big-time alcoholic. His infamous quote, “We are Presbyterians, so we smoke and drink!” as if this is something to brag about, seems to have invoked the wrath of God upon him.
You can read all about this here. The fruits of regeneration and being in the body of Christ:
“Hi Dee and Deb, just a couple of things you might want to correct in this part of your post:”
>> Heart breaking tragedy is not an excuse for substance abuse. Sproul Jr. needs serous help. I learned an important lesson while working in an alcoholic hospital when I was young. Tragedy does not cause alcoholism. Alcoholism is an excuse to drink and every alcoholic in the world usually tries to find an excuse to drink.<<
“Serous help? Haha. Sounds like needs a blood transfusion! …. which is not that far off base: he needs to be born again as this persistent pattern of behaviour shows he is NOT regenerate and is NOT in Christ at all. I wonder whether RC Sproul Senior has accepted that fact yet? I doubt it.”
“And I’m sure you didn’t mean ‘Alcoholism is an excuse to drink’ — I’m pretty sure you meant something like “Alcoholics use tragedy as an excuse to drink…. “
“R C Sproul Junior needs to be put out of the church and that needs to be very publicly done because he has been so significant at Ligonier. 1 Corinthians 5:11-13.”
“But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:11-13)
YOU CAN NEVER LOSE YOUR SALVATION IN CHRIST EVEN IF YOU BECAME AN ATHEIST!?
So, on the other side of this discussion came the logical conclusion that ‘If you played no part in your salvation, then you play no part in your damnation’. ‘If Christ keeps you he will never lose you, no matter what you do!‘
You didn’t save yourself, you won’t lose yourself!
Thus, a Christian could commit adultery, lie, cheat, have homosexual relationships, lie about Islam if it gets them the upper hand in a debate. Because simply put: “Once you are Saved you are Always Saved! A Christian simply put cannot lose their salvation!
“These Christians among them people like Charles Stanely, have positions among them like the following: True Christians will not necessarily persevere in the faith. In fact, a true Christian may receive Jesus as Savior, later become intellectually unconvinced of the gospel, denounce Christ and become an atheist; however, because of that one human decision made at one point in time, he is still considered to be saved. For instance, Joseph Dillow, in The Reign of the Sevant Kings, says, “It is possible for a truly born-again person to fall away from the faith and cease believing.” (p.199). True Christians may fall away completely from the faith and still be saved. God in no way grants them perseverance, or sustains them in their faith.”
There are two books among Baptist Christians that have ignited another battleground, another massive theological divide among Christians.
Version 1.0.0
The two books in question are:
Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. -Zane C. Hodges.
Eternal Security-by Charles Stanley.
Here are some blog links with reviews of these books:
People, Charles Stanly & Zane C. Hodges were heavy hitters among Baptist Christians.
Charles Stanly He also served two one-year terms as president of the Southern Baptist Convention from 1984 to 1986. Zane C Hodges received a master of theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1958. He then taught New Testament Greek and Exegesis (1959–1986) at Dallas Seminary and was chairman of the New Testament Department for some time.
Can you imagine these people and the views they held and this was all seeded in the 80s? Now it is 2025. Is it any wonder that the former United States is in such a condition?
One of many reasons why we do not even take seriously those Christians engaged in calling Muslims to their religion is just how cheaply they treat the suffering and blood of Christ Jesus. The key figures among them associated with people who any discerning Christian should be able to see are in spiritual bondage. If we can see this as a Muslim, why can’t they see that?
This is in accordance with their own standards!
Totally ignored is the following text:
“But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:11-13)
“But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.” (1 Corinthians 9:27)
There is something very spiritually eye-opening about Christians teaming up with atheists to take down Muslims. It’s as if the salvation of the atheists can take a back seat to tearing down Islam.
It is as if there is something that agitates their inner being about seeing women dressing modestly, people praying together, worshiping the one God.
We often wonder what led Christians who debated Muslims to say and do some of the dark things. Among them:
Minister Phil Arms — who used to write books attacking Islam, became addicted to drugs.
Reverend Jimmy Swaggart. The man attacked Islam and Islam’s position on polygamy. Cheated on his wife with prostitutes, potentially introducing an infectious disease to his wife. His ministry never really recovered.
Ted Haggard, former megachurch pastor and head of the 30 million-strong National Association of Evangelicals, struggled with gay sex and methamphetamine. Recently, another Christian minister has come out with claims that Ted also did inappropriate things to him. Ted appeared in Pat Robertson’s the 700 club attacking Islam.
“Dr” Robert Morey, Christian evangelist from the Reformed tradition. Would write booklets against Islam, was famous for his ‘moon god theory’. Lied to the world about his mill degrees, was thrown out by his own denomination for ‘gross habitual financial impropriety’.
Anis Shorrosh, an evangelist, Baptist pastor, debated and wrote against Islam & Muslims. Claimed the Qur’an had grammatical errors and mistakes. Was badly exposed in a debate with an Arab Muslim in which Shorrosh was shown to be not able to read simple passages from the Qur’an. Arrested for burning tax records and in the process almost setting his building on fire. After that, the disgraced pastor left the scene.
Ergun Caner, former dean of the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, lied about being an ex-former devout Muslim. Lied about debating Muslim personalities like Dr. Shabir Ally, was removed from his position on the Liberty University Board. His 15-year-old son, involved in a Twitter war with another pastor, committed suicide.
Time and time again, Christians who attacked Islam & Muslims were handed over to sin and rebellion. Many of them defrauding and fleecing their flock of money. They did more damage to Christianity than Islam, that is for sure.
However, the more we learn about their own understandings of God, the less we become surprised about the things they would get up to.
Even united, they would not fight against you except within fortified strongholds or from behind walls. Their malice for each other is intense: you think they are united, yet their hearts are divided. That is because they are a people with no understanding. (Qur’an 59:14)
“Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:13)
So it is simply not true that whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.
This text has to be interpreted in light of the fact that Christians do leave Christianity. That Christians have other sects that ‘call upon the name of the Lord’ and those sects are deemed as deviant, lost and damned.
OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved)
This is another doctrine that many Christians believe in, in which there are countless texts in the New Testament itself that refute this. However, Christians who push back against this teaching have many proof texts.
They say the following:
Grace does permit immoral living. Does grace permit immorality?
OSAS, or Once Saved Always Saved, they claim, is an emotional doctrine not based on revelation. You have no real basis to call people to true repentance and holiness in life.
We show our love of God by obeying his commands. It is not possible to claim to love God and ignore his commands and prohibitions.
“It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age..” (Titus 2:12)
“But as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, “Be holy, for I am holy.” (1 Peter 1:15-16)
Did Jesus teach Christians a redundant prayer?
“And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.” (Matthew 6:12-14)
“Father, forgive us our trespasses” would seem like a redundant prayer in light of the fact that the claim is that the elect do not trespass.
“But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 24:13)
What does ‘the end’ mean? It means death. A Christian must endure to the end. They are not saved now. They are only saved at the end (that is if they are true believers even to begin with).
“If we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us.” (2 Timothy 2:12)
“He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.” (John 15:2-6)
“Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.” (Romans 11:22)
“You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.”(Matthew 10:22)
“Those on the rocky ground are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.” (Romans 8:13)
“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with mennor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
“But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” (Revelation 21:18)
“If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.” (Hebrews 10:26-27)
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:19)
Now you cannot have your part removed from the book of life or the tree of life unless it was there to begin with.
“As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us—eternal life.” (1 John 2:24-25)
If is a conditional. You will also remain. Which means they are already in the Son and in the Father.
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.” (Matthew 23:37)
“Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12)
Here the New Testament talks about Jesus returning and killing children and rewarding everyone according to their work.
“And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searches the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.” (Revelation 2:23)
“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.” (Matthew 16:27)
Christian widows that have abandoned their former faith in Christ and some have strayed after Satan!
The one who does not provide for his relatives, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever!
“Honor widows who are truly widows. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God. She who is truly a widow, left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day, but she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives. Command these things as well, so that they may be without reproach. But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband,and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work. But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. For some have already strayed after Satan. (I Timothy 5:3-15)
Conclusion
It cannot be said that Christians have assurance of salvation. Many Christians question many things about the fundamentals of their faith. There are just too many unanswered questions about the nature of God, the role of evil, death and sin.
When very learned Christians like the following have deep foundational questions, how much more the layperson?
“How God freely hardens and yet preserves human accountability we are not explicitly told. It is the same mystery as how the first sin entered the universe. How does a sinful disposition arise in a good heart? The Bible does not tell us.” -John Piper
“But Adam and Eve were not created fallen. They had no sin nature. They were good creatures with a free will. Yet they chose to sin. Why? I don’t know. Nor have I found anyone yet who does know.” RC Sproul
Source: Chosen By God, p.31
These are restless minds and restless hearts.
This has led us to believe that the bulk of Christians have not read the Qur’an. They do not read it and ponder it carefully.
We do believe that many Christians have a hunger in their heart and a yearning in their soul for the truth.
Do compare/contrast the Qur’an and it’s account of Genesis chapter 3 with that of the Qur’an.
“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)
﷽
Once again, this shows why it is problematic to take the Qur’an alone. We can glean the meaning of words via the process of Tafsir al-Quran bi-l-Quran. (Interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an). However, there are times when you need to appeal to external references to get the full grasp of what is being conveyed.
Sam Gerrans, one of the followers of the Qur’an Only religion, has translated the text of Qur’an 4:157 as:
“157 And for their saying: “We killed the Messiah,1 Jesus,2 son of Mary,3 the messenger of God,” — and they killed him not nor crucified4 him, but it seemed so5 to them; and those who dispute concerning it are in doubt thereof, no knowledge have they thereof save the pursuit of conjecture — and they killed him not of a certainty.”
Notice that Sam has a note (4) by the word ‘crucified’.
Or put to death by stake. Arabic: ṣalaba. By convention the Traditionalist has understood ṣalaba as to crucify. That understanding is, perhaps, at odds with what Qur’anic usage indicates. In the Qur’an, Firʿawn is called the Lord of Stakes (38:12, 89:10) — which collocation is typically rendered thus by the Traditionalist himself. This fact certainly suggests that the form of capital punishment meted out by Firʿawn featured a stake. The options available for killing a man on a stake are limited. In close proximity to the verb commonly rendered crucify (ṣalaba) Firʿawn threatens that punishment will be inflicted ‘on the trunks of date-palms’ (20:71) — thus lending credence to the notion that the trunks of date-palms were trimmed and sharpened to facilitate impalement. In addition, Firʿawn threatens to cut off hands and feet from alternate sides before executing the punishment in question (7:124, 20:71, 26:49). Attempting to crucify one thus disfigured would be both impractical and run the risk of creating morbid farce — which itself would defeat the point of most of what benefits a tyrant from the public torture of his enemies: the creation of fear. Finally, a date-palm does not possess a crossbar, nor can one readily be made from a second date-palm — a requisite item if we are discussing crucifixion in an intellectually honest manner. However, I render ṣalaba and ṣallaba throughout as to crucify, as per the norm, and confine my dissent to the notes.
Prima Qur’an comments. Sam is correct in that by interpreting the word here in the other places where it is mentioned, you do not get the understanding of a crucifixion. A patibulum with nails placed in the hands and feet.
At least Sam is on board in recognizing that Qur’an 4:157 does not speak of a crucifixion.
However, in his notes he states: ‘Or put to death by stake.’ This is where reliance upon extra Qur’an information comes into play. Because it is via that extra Qur’anic material that one realizes that Jews do not crucify people at all. It is not part of their repertoire.
In fact, to suggest that Qur’an 4:157 should be rendered as crucifixion as the Shi’i and Sunnis do would render the Qur’an of human origin. It is not possible that Allah (swt) would be ignorant of Jewish methods of execution.
Another follower of the Qur’an Only religion, Edip Yuksel, in his Reformist Translation would render Qur’an 4:157 as follows:
“We understand that Jesus was not conscious when they crucified his body.” Jesus’person was already terminated, and he was at his Lord.
However, on the Islamawakened website it has Edip saying:
For their saying, “We have killed the Messiah Jesus the son of Mary, the messenger of God!” They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them as if they had. Those who dispute this are in doubt of him, they have no knowledge except to follow conjecture; they did not kill him for a certainty.
So it looks as if Edip is prepared to lie about Allah (swt) and equally worse impute to Allah (swt) ignorance of Jewish methods of execution.
We can look at a few more translations by those who follow the Qur’an Only religion.
“And for claiming, “We killed the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s Messenger.” They never killed him and never crucified him. But it appeared so to them and the matter remained dubious to them. Those who hold conflicting views on this issue are indeed confused. They have no real knowledge but they are following mere conjecture. Very certainly, they never killed him.”
The Monotheist Group translates Qur’an 4:157 as:
“And their saying: “We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, messenger of God!” And they had not killed him, nor crucified him, but it appeared to them as if they had. And those who dispute are in doubt regarding him, they have no knowledge except to follow conjecture; they did not kill him for a certainty.”
Rashad Khalifa translates Qur’an 4:157 as:
“And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him – they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him.”
Another follower of the Qur’an Only religion that goes by the name of Joseph Islam has the following to say in regard to Qur’an 4:157.
There are many places where Joseph Islam has fumbled.
First, he renders Qur’an 4:157 as:
“That they said (in boast), “Indeed (Arabic: Inna), We killed Jesus Christ, the son of Mary, the Messenger of God”. And they killed him not, nor did they crucify (Arabic: Salabuhu) him, but it appeared so to them (Arabic: Shubbiha), and indeed those who differ in it are surely in doubt (Arabic: Shakkin), with no (certain) knowledge(Arabic: Ilmin), but only follow assumptions (Arabic: Zani), for certainly they did not kill him”
Joseph acknowledges the double denial.
(2) GOD’S RESPONSE TO THE CLAIM OF THE JEWS BY ANALYSING SOME KEY ARABIC TERMS
God’s initial response is two-fold.
(a) They did not kill him
(b) They did not cause Prophet Jesus (pbuh) to die ‘in a well known manner’ (Arabic: Salabuhu)
Joseph then proceeds to tell us:
The word ‘Salabahu’ is formed from the Arabic root word: Sad-Lam-Ba which means:
To put to death by crucifixion, to extract marrow from bones, to put to death in any well known manner of killing.
Please see related article [1] below.
To be crucified one would need to ‘die‘ on the cross / pole or stake. Death by this manner can range from a few hours to days and can be a result of blood loss, hypovolemic shock, infection related sepsis or by dehydration. However, for crucifixion to be complete, death would be necessary.
Therefore, the primary significance of the word ‘Salabahu’ means to put to death in a well known manner. This may mean by a process of crucifixion, but is not restricted to it.
Prima Qur’an comments: The claim that Sad-Lam Ba which means: ‘To put to death by crucifixion.’ is probably one of the biggest lies that LANE. E.W, Edward Lanes Lexicon has ever fostered. One that Joseph had decided to repeat.
Joseph continues:
007:124
“I will certainly cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, then will I will crucify you all together (Arabic: uSALIBANNAkum)”
A popular translation above renders the word ‘Salibanna’ as crucify when all the Arabic implies is a ‘well known manner of death’ at the time of Pharaoh’s reign which may or may not imply crucifixion on a cross.
Prima Qur’an comments:
Again, Joseph is trying to escape reality. Neither does SALIBANNA mean in a ‘well known manner of death’. This is Joseph’s way of saying I do not know, neither does the Qur’an give clarity on the matter.
In fact, by saying ‘well known manner of death’ one would need to be familiar with the types of death that were implemented. This would mean, of course, appealing to information that is external to the Qur’an.
So let us go back and analyze what Joseph had stated:
Joseph acknowledges the double denial. This is something virtually all followers of the Qur’an only religion ignore. The double negation.
(2) GOD’S RESPONSE TO THE CLAIM OF THE JEWS BY ANALYSING SOME KEY ARABIC TERMS
God’s initial response is two-fold.
(a) They did not kill him
(b) They did not cause Prophet Jesus (pbuh) to die ‘in a well known manner’ (Arabic: Salabuhu)
Prima Qur’an comments: The well known manner of execution by the Jews is stoning. After stoning, the Jews impale an individual. This is a post-mortem suspension punishment. Kindly see the article above with Rabbi Dov Stein.
Once one realizes this, we can dispense with:
Sunni views of some other individual being made to look like Jesus and this person was put on a cross.
Qadiani views of Jesus being on a cross and then taken down alive.
Ismaili views of Jesus dying on a cross (as a body) not as a soul.
Another follower of the Qur’an Only religion has his own twist. Allah kills Jesus, not the Jews, but his corpse is taken up into heaven. Later he (Jesus) will be resurrected.
Dear reader, you may not fail to notice the dancing around the verse Qur’an 4:157.
This Shuaib Abdullahi translates Qur’an 4:157 as:
“And their saying, “Indeed, we killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah,” when they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but it was made to appear so to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him for certain.”
Conclusion: Out of all of them, Sam Gerrans came the closest. Yet, he admittedly follows the tradition! “However, I render ṣalaba and ṣallaba throughout as to crucify, as per the norm, and confine my dissent to the notes.” Joseph Islam tried to skirt around the fact that, according to the Qur’an alone methodlogy the Qur’an does not give clarity on the matter. Thus, he implores the ‘well known manner of death’. This in and of itself is an appeal to extra Qur’anic data.
For those interested, please see our article here:
“Woe! Unto those who write the Book with their hands then say, This is from Allah; so that they may take for it a small price. So woe! to them for what their hands write and woe! to them for what they earn.” (Qur’an 2:79)
﷽
Question: What does unadulterated mean?
Answer: unadulterated -complete or pure:
Source: (Longman Active Study Dictionary by Addison Wesley Longman pg. 723)
The reason the word ‘unadulterated’ is used is due to possible misunderstanding among both Christians and Muslims.
What is this possible misunderstanding among Muslims and Christians?
For Muslims, the misunderstanding comes from believing that the Bible as a whole should either be accepted or rejected.
For Christians, the confusion comes from believing that the Injil is equivalent to the ‘New Testament’ and the ‘first five books of Moses‘ are equivalent to the Torah.
According to the Qur’an, is the ‘Bible’ as a whole completely untrustworthy?
Answer: No!
To say that ‘the Bible as a whole‘ is not the word of God is not true.
Question: How do we know?
“Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they find mentioned with them in the Torah and the Injeel.” (Qur’an 7:157)
Prima Qur’an Comment: It doesn’t say they used to find it. It says whom they find mentioned with them.
This very well could be a reference to:
“If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray to the Father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you forever” (John 14:15-16)
“Say, He is Allah the absolute One.” (Qur’an 112:1)
This is mirrored in the following: confirmed in
“Hear, O Israel the Lord, your God the Lord is One” (Deuteronomy 6:4)
Prima Qur’an Conclusion: The above passages are enough evidence to show the Qur’an does confirm some of the ‘what is in what could commonly be called in the English vernacular as the ‘Bible’ that came before it.
Thus, Muslims should not say we completely reject all the contents of the ‘Bible’—as a whole.
Does the Qur’an say that the ‘Bible’ as ‘a whole‘ is the word of God?
Answer: No!
How do we know?
“He begets not, nor was he begotten” (Qur’an 112:3)
This conflicts with:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have life everlasting.” (John 3:16)
“Allah, there is no God but He. The Ever-Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists. Neither slumber nor sleep overtake him.” (Qur’an 2:255)
This conflicts with:
“And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.” (Genesis 2:2)
“Say not Three (Trinity) desist for it is better for you. Allah is one.” (Qur’an 4:171)
This conflicts with:
“For there are three that bear record in heaven: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” (1 John 5:7)
Note: In Latin the word three is Trinitas. This is what the above text would say when rendered in Latin.
Prima Qur’an Conclusion: From the above passages it can clearly be seen that the Qur’an does not accept the ‘Bible’ as ‘a whole‘.
The Qur’an: quality control over the previous revelation
Allah says, in the (Qur’an 5:48)
“And we have sent down to you The Book in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it and MOHAYMINAN over it. So judge by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging away from the truth that has come to you. To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way. If Allah willed, He would have made YOU ONE NATION, but that may test you in what He has given you; so strive as in a race in good deeds. The return of you is to Allah; then He will inform you about that in which you used to differ.”
Two major points should be highlighted.
1)Mohayminan, what does it mean? It means having quality control over that which went before it. To assess a thing. If the previous scriptures were intact in Toto, Allah would not need to be a Mohayminan over it.
If Allah willed, He would have made us ONE NATION, with one set of scriptures, one tongue, one color, etc., but Allah says he did not and states clearly it is to test us.
What scripture is discussed in the Qur’an?
Answer: The Qur’an discusses the scripture (revelation) of Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus.
The Scripture of Abraham.
“Verily! This is in the former scriptures, The SCRIPTURES of ABRAHAM and Moses.” (Qur’an 87:18-19)
Prima Qur’an comments: Do we know where that scripture of Abraham is?
Answer: No.
Question: Do we believe in the principle that he did contain such a scripture?
Answer: Yes, because Allah said so.
Question: Is there evidence of other lost scripture or books within the Bible itself?
Answer: Yes!
Examples of Lost Scripture and Lost Books in the Bible.
“And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed until the nation took vengeance upon their enemies. Is this not written in the book of Jashar?” (Joshua 10:13)
Another example:
“Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?”(1 Kings 11:41)
And yet another example:
“Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the Chronicles of Samuel The Seer, and In The Chronicles Of Nathan The Prophet, and in the Chronicles Of Gad The Seer.” (1 Chronicles 29:29)
Question: Does anyone know where these books are?
Answer: No!
Conclusion:
No one knows where these books are. No one knows where the “Writings of the prophet Nathan” are. However, Allah says in the Qur’an there existed the scripture of Abraham, so we believe in it. So Christians and Jews believe in lost books. I am sure they believe that Allah has some divine wisdom why they cannot go and check the above-mentioned quotes for themselves. Likewise, we do not know where the scrolls of Abraham are.
The Scripture of Moses
“Therefore remind in case the reminder profits. The reminder will be received by anyone who fears him. But it will be avoided by the wretched, Who will enter the Great Fire and make to taste its burning. Wherein he will neither die nor live. Indeed, whosoever purifies himself shall achieve success, And remembers the Name of his Lord, and prays. Nay, you prefer the life of this world, although the Hereafter is better and more lasting. Verily! This is in the former scriptures, The Scriptures of Abraham and Moses.” (Qur’an 87:9-19)
However, a grave misconception exists over what the scripture of Moses is.
It Is not the first five books of the Christian ‘Bible’. Also, it is not the first five books of the Jewish ‘Tanach’. Moses was given the Torah.
It was not something revealed after Him. Traditionally, both Christians and Jews regarded Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy as the words of Moses or author Moses.
This has to be rejected in light of the following evidence.
1)(Deuteronomy 34:7)
“Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died.”
2) As already mentioned above in (Genesis 2:2)
God rest and needs to be refreshed.
3) A careful reading of the Qur’an quotation above, coupled with a careful reading of the first five books of the ‘Bible‘ fails to show that such things are written there. There is no mention of eternal hellfire, nor mention of the life to come.
4) Internal evidence showing the Torah was lost and has been tampered with.
Point A)
“And Hiil-Kiah, the high priest, said to Shaphan, the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hil-kiah gave the book to sha phan, and he read it.” (2 Kings 22:8)
“The accession of Josiah and his eagerness to restore the worship of Jehovah led to the renovation of the Temple, and in the course of this, B.C 621, the book of Deuteronomy was discovered. The priest took it to the king, who joyfully welcomed it and set about putting its program of religious reformation into effect. The dramatic story is told in 2 Kings 22 and 23. Josiah put a stop to the idolatrous practice of the people.”
Source: (Edgar J. Godspeed: ‘How came the Bible?’ pgs 22-23)
point B)
“How can you say we are wise, and we have the law of the lord with us when, behold, the lying pen of the scribes have made it into a lie” (Jeremiah 8:8)
Conclusion: The Torah was given to Moses. Not an autobiography of the life of Moses. Moses did not write, “I was 120 years old when I died”. Moses also did not write things that are blasphemous in nature as to the divine might and power of God. The writings of Moses, if it were intact in ‘Toto’, would have had mention of hellfire and a life to come, as the Qur’an says.
Source: (Qur’an 87:9-19)
Lastly, the eternal evidence is that the Torah was lost and that it was also made into a lie by the lying pen of scribes.
The Scripture of David.
As already given above in (Qur’an 21:105), Allah gave David the Zabur…
Zabur is usually thought of as the Psalms of David. The Psalms are those writings contained in the Tanach of the Jews and the Bible of the Christians. There is not much in this collection of writings entitled Psalms that can be understood to be blasphemous or offensive to Islam.
However, we take issue with statements such as…
“I say, “You are gods, Sons of the Most High (GOD), all of you.” (Psalms 82:6)
Also
I will tell the decree of the Lord: He said to me,” You are my son, today I have begotten you.” (Psalms 2:7)
As already mentioned above…
“He begets not, nor was he begotten” (Qur’an 112:3)
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Prophet David never made such statements about Allah. The Psalms in ‘Toto’ are not the Zabur. Allah has no sons. To ascribe to him sons is a monstrous assault on the absolute oneness of God. To call people ‘gods’, even figuratively, has evolved into a lot of problematic theology within Christianity. See: Benny Hinn “Little God Theology.”
The Scripture of Jesus.
“And in their footsteps, We sent Jesus son of Mary confirming the Torah that had come before him, and We gave him The Gospel.” (Qur’an 5:46)
There is also quite a lot of misunderstanding among Muslims and Christians as to what the Injeel (Gospel) is in Islam.
Question: What does the word Gospel mean?
Answer: The Gospel means- the good news from angels.
The Christian missionaries (some honest, some not so) try to equate the Injeel (Gospel) with 22 or 27 books known as the ‘New Testament’. Some Muslims may even believe that the Injeel is the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. However, there is good reason to show this again not to be the case.
1) For example:
“And he went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom.” (Matthew 4:23)
Prima Qur’an comment: Jesus obviously was not walking around with the ‘New Testament’ in his hands.
2) The following as well:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten son…” (John 3:16)
Prima Qur’an comments: The Qur’an clearly states that Allah does not beget a son (Qur’an 112:3) So we know that is not the Gospel Allah gave Jesus.
3)Accounts of Jesus in the Qur’an not found in the Christian ‘New Testament’.
“At length she brought the baby to her people, carrying him in her arms. They said: “Oh Mary! Truly an amazing thing have you brought!” “O sister of Aaron! your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother an unchaste woman!” But she pointed to the baby. 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 has made me blessed wherever Ibe, and has enjoined don 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” (Qur’an 19:27-33)
“And to appoint him an apostle to the Children of Israel, with this message: “ I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breath into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah’s leave: and I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah’s leave; and I declare to you what you eat, and what you store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if you did believe;” (Qur’an 3:49)
Prima Qur’an comment: The above-mentioned statements of Jesus are not to be found in any quote “canonical New Testament writings.”
These narratives of Jesus have proximity to ‘The Gospel of Thomas’ and “The Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ”, both of which are 2nd-century apocryphal books. One of these is actually a part of the ‘P52‘ fragment. One of the earliest pieces of evidence that Christians like to boast about.
Why apocryphal? Because the ‘Catholic‘ church does not accept them as cannon. However, let’s look at some interesting statements in the ‘New Testament’.
Apocryphal literature quoted in the New Testament itself.
Jannes and Jambres, for example:
“Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.” (2 Timothy 3:8)
“There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25)
“Jesus began to preach at about 30 years of age.” (Luke 3:23)
Prima Qur’an comment: It is obvious from these texts that the ‘New Testament’ the Christians have today does not contain everything done or said by Jesus.
For 30 Jesus did not say or do anything? The Qur’an refutes this by saying that Jesus indeed spoke as an infant in defense of his mother’s chastity, long before the age of 30. We personally would want all the evidence possible of his sayings and deeds so we could come to a conclusion about what his Gospel truly was.
4) The Christians, for a very long time, never contained what is now known to be the entire ‘New Testament‘. Many churches only contained some documents. As there was no printing press at the time. The masses did not have access to their scriptures for some time.
There were Christians in the time of Muhammed (saw). for example. who did not believe that the books of James, Jude, Revelation, 1st, and 2nd Peter were to be included as Canon. These include the Syriac Christians among others.
5) Which Gospel: The Gospel of the Circumcision or the Gospel of the Uncircumcision?
Christians also tell us there is but one gospel. Unfortunately, that is not the case as internal evidence within the text of the Bible itself indicates otherwise.
“But Contra wise, When they saw that the Gospel of the Uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the Circumcision was unto Peter.” (Galatians 2:7-9)
“For if someone comes to you and preaches a different Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.” (2 Corinthians 11:14)
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a different gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!” (Galatians 1:8)
These texts all show there was deep early division among Christians. It is also proof to support the Muslim claim that there were indeed various gospels in circulation. Can you imagine if the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) started to talk about a ‘different Qur’ an‘? Christians would have a field day.
Also, note the haughty tone of Paul. Can you imagine if God wanted to send an angel from heaven to preach a gospel different then the one Paul is preaching?
Conclusion: Within the text that Christians call the ‘Gospel‘ or ‘New Testament‘ is self-evident information about Jesus “preaching the gospel (Injeel).” Jesus obviously did not preach from a book or a gospel that came after him, or from an autobiography about him.
That the message of Jesus, when committed to writing, was not preserved in ‘Toto’ can be seen from references stating that Jesus is the ‘son of God‘ or the ‘begotten son of God‘. However, the Qur’an is emphatic in that Allah does not have a son, rather it is through adoption, ‘monogenes‘ or of any kind.
Another further proof is that the Christians themselves are confused as to what really comprises their ‘New Testament‘ Canon. Insha’Allah, this will be discussed shortly.
Lastly, what Muslims dispute is not that Jesus was given the gospel but what were the contents of that gospel. As can be seen from Biblical internal evidence, there were at least two gospels. Muslims believe the Gospel of Jesus was the one of circumcision.
WHAT ACTUALLY IS THE BIBLE?
Before we delve into the topic of ‘what actually is the Bible‘, let us quote some interesting passages from the Qur’an.
“Say If mankind and jinns were together to produce the like of this Qur’an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another.” (Qur’an 17:88)
“And if you are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down to Our slave, then produce a Surah (Chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses besides Allah, if you are truthful. But if you cannot do it, and you can never do it, then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones prepared for the ungrateful.” (Qur’an 2:23-24)
Now, what actually is the Bible…
Question: What does the word Bible mean?
Answer: The word Bible itself comes from the Greek word Biblious, meaning – A library of books.
Just exactly what is to be constituted in this library is a matter of debate among sincere Christians themselves.
The Bible of the Catholic Church
For example, the Catholic Church, which has 1.1 billion followers worldwide, has 73 books in their Bible that their ‘non-traditionalist’ rivals do not have. Among them are Tobias, Judith, Ecclesiastes, Baruch, Wisdom, 1 Machabees, and 2nd Machabees.
In fact, in direct refutation of Martin Luther (the father of Protestant Christianity) and Protestant affirmations about what is and is not to be in the Bible, the Catholic Church had this to say:
“If any man does not accept sacred and canonical these books entire, with all their parts, as have customarily been read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the ancient common Latin edition… LET HIM BE ANATHEMA!”
Source: (Forth session of the council of Trent, April 8, 1546)
The Bible of the Syrian Church.
You also have the ‘Eastern Christians’ (Nestorian, Syrian) church who believe that there should only be 22 books in the New Testament. Excluding books were Revelation, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and at times James.
Comments by Martin Luther, the father of Protestant Christianity.
Then you have the father of the Protestant Christians – Martin Luther.
Luther believed that the book of James should not have been included in the New Testament. He concluded it to be ‘an epistle of straw‘. The full quote is here:
Martin Luther writes: “In a word, St. John’s Gospel and his First Epistle, St. Paul’s Epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s First Epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and good for you to know, even though you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore, St. James’ Epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to them; for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.“
Source: (In “Luther’s Preface to the New Testament,” published in 1522, revised in 1545, in the Works of Martin Luther, Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932, copyrighted by the United Lutheran Church in America, vol. 6. pp. 443-444., translated by C.M. Jacobs)
The Letter of James is probably the oldest book in the New Testament, but it has a very poor reputation. Eusebius writes, around 325, that the authenticity of this letter is…
“doubted, since few early writers refer to it, any more than to Jude’s…but the fact remains that these two [James and Jude]…have been regularly used in very many churches.”
Source: (The History of the Church, Book 2.23.17)
Martin Luther writes in the sixteenth century of the letter that “I, therefore, refuse him a place among the writers of the TRUE CANON OF MY BIBLE…
Source: (Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude).
Why was Luther so adamant? Why shouldn’t this oldest of the Christian books be venerated?
Luther’s first reason is that the message of the letter is “in direct opposition to St. Paul and all the rest of the Bible” in ascribing Abraham’s salvation to his work of offering up Isaac.
The second reason is that “In the whole length of its teaching, not once does it give Christians any instruction or reminder of the passion, resurrection, or spirit of Christ. It mentions Christ once and again, but teaches nothing about Him; it speaks only of a commonplace faith in God.”
This is very interesting, seeing that Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Lithuania, along with 35 million Americans belong to the ‘Lutheran denomination’ of Christianity.
The Bibles of Evangelical Christianity.
Surprisingly, the greatest critique of the Bible comes from Evangelical Protestant Christianity!
Baptist, Church of Christ, Pentecostals, Jehovah’s Witness, Methodist, and Lutherans: -you name them. In fact, the following passages and versions are very popular among the mentioned Christian sects. Not to mention the new versions of the Bible cast serious doubt on passages accepted canonical by all the aforementioned groups.
Examples from Evangelical Christian Bibles.
Mark (16:9-20) is contained in the King James Bible as well as many older Bibles.
However, since the discovery of more ancient manuscripts upon which the King James Bible has been based, serious doubt has been cast upon such passages as being spurious or at least very doubtful.
John (8:1-11) is yet another example of such a passage.
The above-mentioned passages are contained in the King James Bible.
Yet in the Revised Version of the Bible 1952, the preface states,
“Yet the King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS. Pg v(5) of the preface states, “The {King James Version} of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying.” Pg vi(6) of the preface states, “We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and are far betterequipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text.”
Question: What are some of these GRAVE DEFECTS?
Answer:
Example 1
In the King James Version you have (1 John 5:7)
“For there are three that bare record in heaven: The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.”
This was a big-time ‘proof-text’ for the Trinity. However, the following Bibles have it removed forever!
{New American Bible}
{Revised Standard Bible 1952}
{Revised Standard Bible 1971}
{New International Version}
Prima Qur’an Comment: They have footnotes that say, “There is no manuscript before the 16th Century that contains such a passage.”
One wonders how many other times commentary ‘slipped’’ into the text during copying.
Example 2
The King James Version has Mark (16:9-20) as part of its word of God.
However, about Mark (16:9-20) Edgar J Goodspeed Bible translator noted:
“The short conclusion connects much better with Mark (16:8) than does the long, but neither can be considered as the original part of the Gospel of Mark.”
Source: (The Goodspeed Parallel New Testament, 1944, p 127)
The following Bible Versions have them removed. If they are not removed, there is usually a (footnote) or a line before and after Mark (16:9-20) showing why it is doubted as the word of God.
{New American Bible}
{Revised Standard Bible 1952}
{Revised Standard Bible 1971}
{New International Version}
Prima Qur’an Comment: The text of Mark 16:9-20 has words attributed to Jesus which Christians for over 1600 years believed to be the words of Jesus. One wonders how many other words attributed to Jesus may be taken out next!
Example 3
The King James Version has John (8:1-11) as part of its word of God.
However, Christian scholars have this to say: “The spurious passages in John (7:53-8:11) have obviously been ADDED TO THE ORIGINAL TEXT of John’s Gospel. They are not found in the Sinaitic Manuscript or the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, though they do appear in the sixth-century Codex Bezae and later Greek manuscripts. They are omitted, however, by most of the early versions. It is evident that they are not part of John’s Gospel. One group of Greek manuscripts places this passage AT THE END OF JOHN’S GOSPEL; another group PUTS IT AFTER LUKE (21:38), supporting the conclusion that IT IS A SPURIOUS AND UNINSPIRED TEXT.”
Source: (Revised Standard Bible 1971)
The following Bible Versions have them removed. If they are not removed, there is usually a (footnote) or a line before and after John (8:1-11) showing why it is doubted as the word of God.
{New American Bible}
{Revised Standard Bible 1952}
{Revised Standard Bible 1971} This version even has the material about where various manuscripts have placed it.
{New International Version}
Conclusion: We can see that there is no such thing as ‘The Bible’ among Christians. There are Bible(s) according to whose camp you belong to, or what church tradition one follows. We can all see that the Bible does not meet the standards of the Qur’an in the passages given at the beginning of this discussion.
The Christians themselves have been led into believing that certain books or passages are the words of God or inspired by him when they are not. Thus, people have made something like the Bible.
I will leave you with this following quotation from the book of Revelation for Christians to think about…
Revelation (22:18-19)
“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book;if anyone adds to them, God will add to him plaguesdescribed in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of this Book of Prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of lifeand in the holy city, which are described in this book.”
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE BIBLE
One of the reasons we didn’t name this topic “The Authenticity of the Bible” is because to be authentic you have to have a genuine original.
Christians never call their documents ORIGINAL. They call them ANCIENT AND MOST ANCIENT. The reason they do this is that they are simply being transparent. However, some of them make the masses feel that the Bible they have is an exact replica of the original manuscripts. However, when they are confronted with point-blank contradictions in the text, they usually resort to saying, “Well I believe those are not in the original autographs.”
“This is necessary to do with the books of the Bible, as with all literary documents of the ancient world, because the originals are no longer extant. Not only this, but of the more than five thousand manuscript copies of the Greek New Testament, no two of them agree completely. It is essential, therefore, that anyone who expounds the Word of God be acquainted to some degree with the science of textual criticism if he or she is to expound that Word faithfully.”- Daniel B Wallace.
If you look up the word Authentic in any dictionary, it has the following meanings: original, real, true, genuine, pure, accurate, reliable, legitimate, factual, actual, concrete, verifiable, authoritative, trustworthy.
So if, by their own admission, they don’t have an authentic original indeed what are they telling us?
This is unlike the Qur’an, in which states that it will be preserved.
“Verily, It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (the Qur’an) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption) .” (Qur’an 15:9)
Note: Allah tells us that he will guard the Qur’an. This is unlike the previous scriptures. It was up to human beings to guard them.
“…and the rabbis and the priest (judged according to their Scriptures), FOR TO THEM WAS ENTRUSTED THE PROTECTION OF THE BOOK OF ALLAH, and they were witnesses to it.” (Qur’an 5:44)
So, two things can be seen from the viewpoint of the Qur’an.
1) The protection of the Qur’an is under Allah
2) The protection of the previous scriptures is under the religious establishment.
Does the Bible even claim to be from God?
The Qur’an claims to come from God.
“The Most Beneficent. Has taught the Qur’an. He created man. He taught him speech.” (Qur’an 55:1-4)
Again we have…
“Ha Mim. The revelation of the Book is from Allah, the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.” (Qur’an 46:1-2)
Examining the Doctrine of Inspiration: The claim that it comes from God.
The reason for this investigation is simple. Why should a person consider scripture to have come from Allah if it doesn’t claim to come from him?
When we ask Christians a very pointed question. Does your book (scriptures) even claim to come from Allah? They say yes.
The two texts cited by them to prove that the Bible claims to come from Allah are
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction into righteousness” {King James Version} (2 Timothy 3:16)
“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21)
If we look at the first text given of 2 Timothy (3:16) in context, he will see that it only certifies the Hebrew Scriptures.
2 Timothy (3:15), ” And from a child you have known the holy scriptures which are able to make the wise to salvation which is in Jesus Christ.”
We can see clearly in the context that IF this text is making a claim to anything, it’s the ‘Old Testament scriptures’.
Why? Because when Timothy was a child there were no ‘New Testament’ writings at that time.
We also know that this scripture DOES NOT verify everything in the Bible as being from Allah! How do we know?
When we get a correct translation. As already mentioned, the Christians have Bible Versions that are more accurate than those they previously possessed.
In the first {Revision Standard Version} of the Bible, the translation of (2 Timothy 3:16) is very revealing.
2 Timothy (3:16)(Revised Standard Version 1881, 1952)
“Every scripture inspired by God is profitable for teaching, forreproof, for correction, for training into righteousness.”
Also, the Douay Rheims Version and the Revised Standard Version 1971 have an alternative reading of this passage.
We hope that the difference above between ‘all scripture IS-inspired‘ and ‘all scripture inspired’, is understood.
For example, if I say ALL the apples are good, it means ALL the apples are good. However, if I say all the apples that are good it means some of them are not good.
Read the above passage once again…
“Every scripture inspired by God (not that all scripture IS inspired by God) is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training into righteousness.”
The Internal Evidence is that “not all scripture is inspired.”
We have internal evidence within the Biblical text that shows the above reading ‘All scripture inspired by God’ is correct.
“And unto the married, I command Yet not I, But the Lord Let not the wife depart from her husband: But if she departs, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother has a wife that believes not, and she is pleased to dwell with him, let him or put her away.” (1 Corinthians 7:10-12)
“Now concerning virgins, I have no commandment from the Lord: yet I give my judgment as one that obtained the mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress. I say that it is good for a man so to be.” (1 Corinthians 7:25-26)
“But she is happier if she so abides. After my judgment, and I THINK (I’m not sure) I also have the Spirit of God.” (1 Corinthians 7:40)
In the first text, it can be seen that in the first text Paul was going to say something and then catch himself. The second text is crystal clear in that Paul says that he doesn’t feel the Holy Spirit, inspiring him to say anything. However, since he does keep in contact with Paul, Paul feels he can give his own judgment. In the third text, Paul is not even sure if the Spirit of God is with him.
More examples of Uninspired scripture.
“One of themselves, even a prophet of their own said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.” (Titus 1:12)
This is not inspired scripture. Paul is quoting Epimenides, who was a 6th Century soothsayer. He was no prophet of God.
“For in him, we live, and move, and have our being; as certain of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.” (Acts 17:28)
This is not inspired scripture. Paul is quoting the poet Aratus from Cilicia Lycia and this guy is talking about the pagan deity ZEUS! He is then making a poem about a pagan deity that applies to God!
“Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13)
We know this is uninspired scripture because the teachings of the prophets are perfect. Jesus would never have uttered this statement.
The greater teaching is that ‘a man lay down his life for his enemies‘
A very candid presentation by the ‘author’ Luke.
“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, Just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been instructed.” (Luke 1:1-4)
There are a lot of things to be said about this.
1) Where are the many accounts Luke is talking about?
2)Note: Luke said he was getting second information from ‘those who were eyewitnesses’ who ‘delivered them to us‘. He isn’t getting his information from God but from oral tradition.
3) Luke says ‘it seemed good to me also‘ to write ‘an orderly account’. If Luke thought the accounts already given were sufficient, he would not have felt the need to write his own account.
4) Finally, if Luke writes an ‘orderly account’’ are the other accounts disorderly? Would the Holy Spirit inspire disorder?
This is clearly different from the apostles of Jesus who said:
“For it seemed good to us AND the Holy Spirit to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:” (Acts 15:28)
The Apostles said it seemed good to ‘us and the Holy Spirit’. However, Luke said it seemed good to him (only)
Prima Qur’an Comments: Because of these and other problems, the Evangelical Christians have adopted their position on inspiration.
We will now examine the four points Evangelicals have now adopted.
1) Everything inspired is not scripture.
2) Everything that is scripture is not inspired.
3) Everything that is scripturally inspired is not preserved.
4) Everything that is preserved is not scripturally inspired.
An example of point number 1
“I have a lot to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face.” (3 John 1:13)
Prima Qur’an Comment: This writer is clearly stating that everything inspired need not be written. He feels what he needs to say can be said in person “face to face.”
At the least, it shows that everything that is inspired is not necessarily scripture.
An example of point number 2
“Now concerning virgins, I have no commandment from the Lord: yet I give my judgment as one that obtained the mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress. I say that it is good for a man so to be.” (1 Corinthians 7:25-26)
Two examples of point 3
“I wrote unto you in an EPISTLE not to company with fornicators:” (1 Corinthians 5:9)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Well, if everything Paul wrote was inspired by God, then where is this epistle at?
By the way. this is 1st Corinthians, not 2nd Corinthians.
“Or do you suppose it is in vain that the SCRIPTURE says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit which he has made to dwell in us”? (James 4:5)
Prima Qur’an comment: Where is this Scripture at? So does the Bible contain all of God’s scripture or not?
Examples of point 4
The ‘Catholics‘ would say that the book of Tobit has been preserved, but the Protestants would not agree to it being inspired. Many books of antiquity have come down to us today and Christians would readily agree that this is not necessarily a case for inspiration.
Further thoughts on inspiration. The following is taken from Daniel B Wallace. He is a very conservative Christian and has written an excellent essay on various viewpoints among Evangelicals. It is quite an eye-opening essay.
“Sturz gives some further helpful analogies (Byzantine Text-Type, 38): Preservation of the Word of God is promised in Scripture, and inspiration and preservation are related doctrines, but they are distinct from each other, and there is a danger in making one the necessary corollary of the other. The Scriptures do not do this. God has given the perfect revelation by verbal inspiration, was under no special or logical obligation to see that man did not corrupt it.”
“W.N. Pickering, “Identity of the New Testament Text,” 150. In Pickering’s theological construct, then, the doctrine of inspiration has no significance, for elsewhere he argued. “If we do not have the inspired words or do not know precisely which they be, then the doctrine of Inspiration is inapplicable.” (Burgeon, 88)
“Matthew 24:35 “ Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away,” is used in support of preservation. But once again, even though this text has the advantage of referring to Jesus’ words (as opposed to the OT), the context is clearly eschatological; thus, the words of Jesus have certainty of fulfillment. That the text does not here mean that his words will all be preserved in written form is absolutely certain, because (1) this is not only foreign to the context but implies that the written gospels were conceived at this stage in Heilsgeschichte decades before a need for them was apparently felt; (2) we certainly do not have all of Jesus words recorded either in scripture or elsewhere (cf John 20:30 and 21:25)”
“Wilbur Pickering, former president of the Majority Text Society, has continued this type of argument into the present debate. In his 1968 master’s thesis done at Dallas Seminary (An Evaluation of the Contribution of John William Burgon to the New Testament Textual Criticism)”
We have seen that Christians are claiming for the Bible what it does not even claim for itself, namely, that it is the inspired word of God. We have given clear proof text that shows many passages in the Bible are not inspired by God. Above all. Luke himself, a major Gospel writer, does not claim inspiration from God.
The Claims of Allah in the Qur’an about previous scripture.
“Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, This is from Allah,” to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn thereby.” (Qur’an 2:79)
In the sublime oral tradition we have:
Narrated Ubaidullah: Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah’s Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, ‘It is from Allah,’ to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!”
“And verily, among them is a party who distort the Book with their tongues (as they read), so that you may think it is from the Book, but it is not from the Book, and they say: “This is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah; and they speak a lie against Allah while they know it.” (Qur’an 3:78)
Narrated Abu Huraira: The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah’s Apostle said (to the Muslims), “Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, ‘We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.’
2) Different schools of thought reporting in another language and twisting the meanings of the original wording.
Internal evidence shows that the Bible agrees with Allah on this.
“How can you say we are wise, and the ‘law of the lord'(Torah) is with us’? But BEHOLD, THE FALSE PEN OF THE SCRIBES HAS MADE IT (The Torah) INTO A LIE.” (Jeremiah 8:8)
“And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eli Eli lama sabach-thani?” which is being interpreted, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?”(Matthew 27:46)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
1) In the first point, the Bible itself claims the Torah was corrupted by the pen of the scribes. Every time you see ‘law of the lord’ that word there is TORAH!
2) On the second point, this has puzzled scholars of the ‘New Testament‘. Why would someone leave the Aramaic statement of Jesus and then put the translation in Greek?
Why not just translate it?
Also, this is evidence that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not evidence that Jesus spoke Greek. So the ‘New Testament‘ documents are not in the language of revelation that Jesus spoke.
DOES THE BIBLE CONTAIN CONTRADICTIONS?
“Do they not consider the Qur’an carefully? Had it been from any other Allah, they would have surely found therein many contradictions.” (Qur’an 4:82)
Now, when talking with Christians, you may see the following positions taken.
1) The Bible is inerrant (error-free). This means being free from contradictions or problems of any kind. This position is usually taken among Evangelical Christians.
2) When you show them a contradiction (or error) they might say, “Well, it has nothing to do with my doctrine.”
They may say, “Well it’s ONLY ONE!” This position is usually taken by many mainstream churches, such as the Catholic Church.
3) They might even say, well, I BELIEVE in the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS. It was error-free. This position is taken by Evangelical Christians when finally confronted with the daunting reality of a flat contradiction or error.
Let’s respond to the above going from 3 to 1.
3) It should be noted that there are NO ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. They have ‘ancient‘ and ‘most ancient‘ as already discussed. They are just relying on BLIND FAITH.
The Christians do not have a dual preservation method in which people commit the revelation to memory as well as text.
2) If they say, “It’s only one,” it should be pointed out that their doctrine is that the BIBLE IS INNERANT.
Therefore, it’s a MAJOR PROBLEM.
Alas! How many holes does it take to pop a balloon?
What if you were on an airplane and a window was smashed out? Well, it’s only one!
One hole pops the balloon!
1) The fact is that there are flat contradictions and errors in the Bible. The following will give more than enough proof of that.
Question: Should a contradiction from a translation be sufficient to show the Bible has an error?
Answer: No!
When giving contradictions in the Bible, it should be noted that we should show such contradictions from the Greek and Hebrew Text.
Why? Because we as Muslims would not accept any ‘contradictions‘ from a translation.
The Qur’an is in the Arabic text. So we should not set about a double standard.
So surface (seemingly) contradictions will not do.
Question: What is surface contradiction?
Answer:
Example of a surface contradiction in the Bible.
“And Michael, the daughter of Saul, had no child until the day of her death.” (2 Samuel 6:23)
“The king took the two sons of Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, whom she bore to Saul, Armoi and Mephiboseth; and the FIVE SONS OF MICHAL.” (2 Samuel 21:8)
Prima Qur’an Comment:
This would be a contradiction except that there is an alternative reading of MICHAL with the Hebrew word MERAB. Thus, as the Hebrew text can read ‘ FIVE SONS OF MERAB‘ we don’t have a contradiction.
Thus, the importance of establishing the evidence from the text in the original language is demonstrated.
EXAMPLES OF CLEAR CONTRADICTIONS IN THE TEXT
“When the evening came, they brought unto him MANY that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed ALL that were sick.” (Matthew 8:16)
“And at evening, when the sun did set, they brought unto him ALL that were diseased and them that were possessed with devils. And ALL the city was gathered together at the door. And he healed MANY that were sick of diverse diseases, and cast out MANY devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.” (Mark 1:32-34)
Prima Qur’an Comment: The Greek word for many is (pantas) and the Greek word for all is (pollous). Matthew saw some deficiency in a Jesus that only healed many, so he switched the Greek words around.
Another example:
“And there came a voice from heaven, saying YOU ARE my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:11)
“And lo a voice from heaven, saying, THIS IS my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17)
Prima Qur’an Comment: The Greek word for you is su and the Greek word for this is would be (outos). Mark held that Jesus was the adopted son of God, called adoptionist theology. Matthew felt Jesus already knew who he was because he was the son of God based on the Virgin birth and therefore did not need to be told who he was. He changes the wording of the voice, so the people are addressed.
Another example:
“And when he knew it of the Centurion, he gave the body to JOSEPH. And HE brought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulcher which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulcher.” (Mark 15:45-46)
“And though THEY found no cause of death in him, yet desired THEY Pilate that he should be slain. And when THEY had fulfilled all that was written of him, THEY took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulcher.” (Acts 13:28-29)
Prima Qur’an comments: This goes back to the conflict over whether Jesus died and was then impailed on a Tree or rather he was nailed to a Patibulum (T tau or + cross-shaped fixture). Here it says the same Jews who desired his death put him in the tomb and not Joseph.
Another example:
“Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightaway you shall find an ASS tied, AND A COLT with her: lose THEM, and bring THEM unto me. And if any man says ought unto you, you shall say, The Lord hath need of THEM and straightway he will send THEM. All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy King comes to you, meek, and sitting upon an ASS, AND A colt the foal of an ass. And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, And brought the ASS, AND the COLT, and put on THEM their clothes, and they set him thereon.” (Matthew 21:2-7)
“And said unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as you be entered into it, you shall find a colt tied, whereon never sat; lose HIM, and bring him. And if any man says unto you, Why do you do this? Say you that the Lord has need of HIM, and straightaway he will send HIM hither. And they went their way and found the colt tied by the door without It a place where two ways met, and they lose HIM. And certain of them stood there and said, What are you doing losing the COLT? And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go. And they brought the COLT to Jesus, and cast their garments on HIM, and he sat upon HIM.” (Mark 11:2-7)
“Rejoice greatly, O’ daughter of Zion; shout, O’ daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass,” (Zechariah 9:9)
Prima Qur’an Comment: The Greek word for a colt (singular) is polos and for it (ayton). The Greek word for them is (vavtos). This contradiction is not really on Mark’s part, as it is Matthew’s lack of understanding of Hebrew or else using the Greek Septuagint. In Zechariah 9:9 the original Hebrew shows only one ass, the term even stressing that. However, Matthew didn’t look into the Hebrew text of the matter.
The New American Bible has the following commentary,
“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 the mistake. Upon them: upon the two animals; a peculiar picture resulting in Matthew’s misunderstanding of Zechariah 9:9”
Source: (New American Bible pg 1043 commentary on Matthew 21)
Another example:
“And they arrived at the country of GERGESENES, which is over against Galilee. Then the whole multitude of the country of the GERGESENES round about sought him to depart from them; for they were taken with great fear: and he went up into the ship, and returned back again.” (Luke 8:26,37)
“And when he came to the other side into the country of the GADARENES, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.” (Matthew 8:28)
Prima Qur’an Comment: This error in the Greek text is more due to a scribal gloss in the Greek text.
Another example:
“And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him A CENTURION, beseeching him,” (Matthew 8:5)
“And a certain centurion’s servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die. And when he heard of Jesus, HE SENT UNTO THEM ELDERS OF THE JEWS, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.” (Luke 7:2-3)
Prima Qur’an Comment:
The Greek phrase for older men is (presbuteros). The Greek word for centurion is (hekatontarchos). The reason this exists has more to do with oral tradition than the ideas either of the writers had.
Another example:
“While he spoke these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is EVEN NOW DEAD: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.” (Matthew 9:18)
“And sought him greatly, saying, My little daughter LIES AT THE POINT OF DEATH: I pray thee, come and lay hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live.” (Mark 5:23)
Prima Qur’an Comment:
The Greek term for the deceased is (teleute). Again, Matthew thought that a Jesus who could save a dead person was going to be more illustrious than a Jesus who merely saved a dying person. So this contradiction is the result of the developing theology surrounding the person of Jesus.
Another example:
“The first day of the week comes Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and see THE STONE TAKEN AWAY from the sepulcher. Then she ran, and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciples, whom Jesus loved, and said unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulcher, and we know not where they have laid him.” (John 20:1-2)
“And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the Angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and ROLLED BACK THE STONE from the door, and sat upon it.” (Matthew 28:2)
Prima Qur’an Comment: The reason such an anomaly exists is that the writer John believed in a spiritual resurrection of Jesus in which the stone would be no barrier. However, Matthew believed in a physical resurrection and a stone would be a barrier to that.
“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16)
“Samuel said to Saul: “It was I the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel. Now, therefore, listen to the message of the Lord.
This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: “ I will punish the Amelek tribe did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.” (1 Samuel 15:1-3)
Prima Qur’an Comment: One can make all the excuses they want about how infants took part in harming Israel on the way to Egypt, but it would be a real stretch. God did not command the killing of babies. This text here is a forgery. Bloodlust in the name of God is not scripture, and it contradicts God’s clear command in Deuteronomy that children will not be put to death for their father’s misdeeds.
Conclusion: It should be seen that the Bible has contradictions within the text. These contradictions also show that the Bible is not the word of God according to the criteria the Qur’an gave above.
THOSE AMAZING BIBLE ‘PROPHECIES’
If I had to pick THE reason why I think most Christians believe that the Bible is THE word of God, I would say because of the idea of prophecies.
Most Christians think the Bible is filled with amazing Bible prophecies about the future. ‘
However, what does the Bible say about such ‘prophecies’?
“If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods ‘which you have not known,’ and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord, your God is TESTING YOU, TO KNOW WHETHER YOU LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART and all your soul.” (Deuteronomy 13:1-3)
So the Bible admits even FALSE PROPHETS can make accurate prophecy fulfillment. However,We think there are better reasons than that to question the ‘amazing prophecies‘ belief held by Christians. Many Christians are not even aware of the following.
1) In the original CONTEXT, they were not even ‘prophecies‘ awaiting fulfillment!
2) Text quoted as ‘prophecy‘ is not even taken as a HOMOGENEOUS UNIT and the context is ignored.
3) Sometimes even the text supposedly quoted IS NOT EVEN TO BE FOUND.
4) Sometimes text from TWO DIFFERENT PROPHETS is attributed to ONE PROPHET.
5) Most importantly, these ‘proof-texts’ were only ‘prophecies’ in the WILD IMAGINATIONS of those that said so.
AN EXAMPLE OF NUMBER 1
An interpolated statement put in the mouth of Jesus
“He who believes in me, as SCRIPTURE SAID,” out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.” (John 7:38)
Prima Qur’an Comment:
However, there is NO SUCH SCRIPTURE anywhere in the Tanach (Old Testament)! Yet {footnotes} will have the following passages.
“For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground I will pour my spirit upon your descendants.” (Isaiah 44:3)
“Lo, everyone one who thirsts come to the waters; and he who has no money come and buy wine and milk without money and without price.” (Isaiah 55:1)
” And the Lord will guide you continually, and satisfy your desire with good things (Hebrew meaning uncertain) and make your bones strong and you shall be like a watered garden, like a spring of water, whose waters fail not.” (Isaiah 58:11)
All of the above passages are not the STATEMENT OF Jesus in (John 7:38). Their are no ‘prophecies‘ awaiting fulfillment.
AN EXAMPLE OF NUMBER 2
Another interpolated statement is put in the mouth of Jesus.
“The son of man does go as it is WRITTEN OF HIM: but one unto that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.” (Mark 14:21)
Prima Qur’an Comment:
Again, there is NO SUCH STATEMENT in the Tanach (Old Testament)
However, {footnotes} will have the following passage.
“Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me.” (Psalms 41:9)
There are two major points we would like to reflect on regarding this.
1) In CONTEXT this passage CANNOT refer to the life of Jesus. Why? Because of the following text.
“As for me, I said, “O Lord, be gracious to me, heal me, FOR I HAVE SINNED AGAINST THEE!” (Psalms 41:4)
So was Jesus sinless or not?
2) If there was a ‘prophecy‘ about a man betraying Jesus, this would mean Judas’ destiny was marked before the poor fellow was even born! So much for salvation!
“He stayed there until the death of Herod, that what the Lord had said through the prophet might be fulfilled, “Out of Egypt I called my son.” (Matthew2:15)
This is taken from:
“When Israel was a child I loved him, out of Egypt I called my son. The more I called them, the farther they went from me, Sacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to idols.” (Hosea 11:1-2)
Prima Qur’an Comment: This is only a prophetic fulfillment in the wild imagination of Matthew. Anyone can clearly see that Hosea 11:1-2 is no amazing prophecy awaiting fulfillment. Not only that but the context refers to Israel and not Jesus.
Only if you ignore the context could it refer to Jesus. Why?
Because a Muslim would never ever accept that Jesus “sacrificed to the Baals and burned incense to idols.”
AN EXAMPLE OF NUMBER 3
“And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, “HE SHALL BE CALLED A NAZARENE.” (Matthew 2:23)
Prima Qur’an Comment:
There is no such ‘prophecy‘ anywhere in the Tanach (Old Testament). The scholars of Christianity respond with the following two arguments. |
1) Matthew said SPOKEN not WRITTEN.
Response: Well, how can there be proof of divine inspiration in a ‘prophecy statement’ that may have never been made?
2) Those scholars that know better than to use the above ‘reasoning’
say it is fulfilled in (Isaiah 11:1).
Note: In your Bible it is quite likely that you will find a {footnote} will also have you look at (Isaiah 11:1) which says,
“There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots.”
Response: It does not say, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”
Anyhow, in a last-ditch effort, they will say the word BRANCH (NESTER) is derived from the same Hebrew root as Nazareth, the town.
Wrong!
Branch (NSTR), Nazareth (NZRTH) and worse yet, Nazarene (NZRN) are not the same root words.
Strong’s Concordance says the name Nazareth is of “uncertain derivation.”
“Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightaway you shall find an ASS tied, AND A COLT with her: lose THEM, and bring THEM unto me. And if any man says ought unto you, you shall say, The Lord hath need of THEM and straightway he will send THEM. All this was done, that it might be FULFILLED WHICH WAS SPOKEN BY THE PROPHET, saying, Tell the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy King comes to you, meek, and sitting upon an ASS, AND A colt the foal of an ass. And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, And brought the ASS, AND the COLT, and put on THEM their clothes, and they set him thereon.” (Matthew 21:2-7)
“And said unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as you be entered into it, you shall find a COLT tied, whereon never sat; lose HIM, and bring him. And if any man says unto you, Why do you do this? Say you that the Lord has need of HIM, and straightaway he will send HIM hither. And they went their way and found the colt tied by the door without It a place where two ways met, and they lose HIM. And certain of them stood there and said, What are you doing losing the COLT? And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go. And they brought the COLT to Jesus and cast their garments on HIM, and he sat upon HIM.” (Mark 11:2-7)
In light of:
“Rejoice greatly, O’ daughter of Zion; shout, O’ daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass,” (Zechariah 9:9)
Prima Qur’an Comment:
This was only a ‘prophecy‘ in Matthew’s wild imagination. Here “Matthew” or whoever wrote it did not understand the use of Hebrew poetic parallelism and thus misunderstood the text. Or he was using the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew. In any case, it’s no amazing prophecy awaiting fulfillment.
Matthew’s mistake is unique in that it shows many things.
a) It contradicts Mark who says Jesus rode only one colt.
b) Shows Matthew that even in the most ancient manuscripts they have put words in Jesus’ mouth such as “untie THEM”, and “bring THEM.” Jesus had to ride two asses because Matthew thought this is what ‘prophecy’ fulfillment required from him.
“Then was fulfilled what had been said through Jeremiah the prophet, “ And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of a man with a price on his head, a price set by some of the Israelites, and they paid it out for the potter’s field just as the Lord had commanded me.” (Matthew 27:9-10)
Prima Qur’an Comment: This is another example of those prophecies the Christians keep telling us about. Try as one might, this statement is nowhere in Jeremiah.
The New American Bible had the following comment to say,
“Matthew’s attributing this text to Jeremiah is puzzling, for there is no such text in that book, and the thirty pieces of silver thrown by Judas ‘into the temple” recall rather Zechariah 11:12-13”
Source: (New American Bible pg 1058 commentary on Matthew 27)
AN EXAMPLE OF NUMBER 5
In the (King James Version) of the Bible we have.
“As it is WRITTEN IN THE PROPHETS, “Behold, I send My messenger before thy face, which shall prepare the way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” (Mark 1:2-3)
However, Christians can’t hide this error forever. So now the (Revised Standard Version), which is the (corrected King James Version), has the following.
“As it is WRITTEN IN ISAIAH the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before thy, face, who shall prepare thy way” (Mark 1:1)
When you read your {footnotes} to (Mark1:2) it has (Malachi 3:1) meaning THIS IS ACTUALLY IN (Malachi 3:1)!
So there we have someone attributing to Isaiah that which was spoken in Malachi. This is no amazing ‘prophecy‘, just a biblical error!
Conclusion: Making any text of the Tanach (Old Testament) into a ‘prophecy‘ the way the New Testament writers did is not really hard to do.
To show some examples, we will take some text IGNORE THE CONTEXT and make some ‘prophecies‘ of our own.
Ready?
MAKING BIBLICAL “PROPHECIES” IS FUN, CREATIVE AND EASY TO DO!
To show the reader that it is not very difficult to take passages out of context in the “Old Testament” and make them apply to Jesus, we decided to see if we were any good at it. You the reader be the judge.
“And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man, thus fulfilling what was WRITTEN of him.” (Luke 2:52)
Well, we would then have a {footnote} that would say (Proverbs 3:4). You, the Christian wanting to see the amazing ‘prophecy’ fulfillment’ would turn to find.
“And you will find favor and understanding in the sight of God and man.” (Proverbs 3:4)
So that is fulfilled in Jesus. If not, why not?
“And they all forsook him and fled, thus fulfilling what was WRITTEN of him.” (Mark 14:50)
We would then have a {footnote} that would say (Isaiah 53:3). You, the Christian wanting to see the amazing ‘prophecy’ fulfilled, would turn to find:
“He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” (Isaiah 53:3)
So that was fulfilled when the disciples all left Jesus. If not, why not?
“Jesus wept, thus fulfilling what the scripture said concerning him.” (John 11:35)
We would then have a {footnote} giving (Psalms 69:3). You, the Christian wanting to see this amazing ‘prophecy’ fulfilled, would then find:
” I am weary with my crying; my throat is parched. My eyes grow dim with waiting for my God.” (Psalms 69:3)
So this was fulfilled when Jesus wept. If not. why not?
OVERALL CONCLUSION: THE BIBLE HAS BEEN ADULTERATED
The statements by Allah in the Qur’an about the Bible (as a whole) show it does not pass the test! The Bible did not meet the 5 points.
1) Anyone can make something like the Bible. The Christians are not even sure what is or what is not revealed. They have been duped into believing certain passages or books are God’s word(s) when they were not.
2) The Bible has not been preserved. The adding and taking away of books and passages show this. If it had been preserved, none of these arguments would have come up among Christians. The fact they don’t have the ‘authentic‘ Bible but just ‘ancient‘ and ‘most ancient’ proves the point as well.
3) The ‘scriptures‘ do not even claim to be of divine origin. They are very candid about the fact they are not.
4) Any book claiming to be from God should be free from contradictions; even one!
5) On the so-called ‘prophecies’ in the Bible, once again their own ‘scripture‘ indicts them on forging scriptures (Jeremiah 8:8) and making up prophecies (Deuteronomy 13:1-3) and attributing them to God.
Is it not time to look at the glorious Qur’an?
To put the Qur’an through the above criteria?
To consider it’s sublime divine guidance for all of humanity?
To consider, last of all, that it is a divine message for all mankind?
“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 Guide the Christians to the truth so that they do not burn in hellfire.
“So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort (yuḥarrifūna) words upon delivery (mawāḍiʿihi) and have forgotten(wanasu) a portion of that of which they were (dhukkiru) reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good.” (Qur’an 5:13)
﷽
This article we will discuss the forceful argument of the Qur’an about the corruption of the previous revelations during the oral transmission process.
“Have you any hope that they will be true to you when a party of them used to listen(yasma’una) to the word of Allah, then used to (yuharrifunahu)change it, after they had understood(‘aqaluhu) it, knowingly.” (Qur’an 2:75)
This verse is quite explicit in the damnation of these people. That they actually would listen to the words of Allah (auditory hearing), they understood it, confirmed it and knowingly changed it — during the oral transmission process!
Received the revelation from Allah.
Understood it.
Knowingly distorted it during the oral transmission process.
One would have to be extremely vile to do such a thing.
Those Christians who accept the following text to be canon (approved by the Church as acceptable) — have something interesting in the following:
“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.” (Revelation 22:18-19)
*note* keep in mind that there are Christian sects who do not accept the above as canon. As their particular Church did not approve of the book of Revelation as authoritative.
” Among the Jews are those who distort(yuḥarrifūna) words upon their delivery(mawadi’ihi) and say, “We hear and disobey” and “Hear but be not heard” and “Ra’ina,” twisting their tongues and defaming the religion. And if they had said [instead], “We hear and obey” and “Wait for us [to understand],” it would have been better for them and more suitable. But Allah has cursed them for their ingratitude, so they believe not, except for a few.” (Qur’an 4:46)
Again Allah (swt) says he has cursed them for their ingratitude. By use of their tongues, they change the truth during the oral transmission process.
“O Messenger, let them not grieve you who hasten into disbelief of those who say, “We believe” with their mouths, but their hearts believe not, and from among the Jews. [They are] avid listeners (sammāʿūna) to falsehood(lil’kadhibi), listening (sammāʿūna) to another people who have not come to you. They distort (yuharrifuna)words upon their delivery (mawadi’ihi), saying “If you are given this, take it; but if you are not given it, then beware.” But he for whom Allah intends fitnah – never will you possess [power to do] for him a thing against Allah. Those are the ones for whom Allah does not intend to purify their hearts. For them in this world is disgrace, and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.” (Qur’an 5:41)
Because of their disbelief, Allah (swt) caused them to be in fitnah. There can be no greater fitnah than not having certainty about what Allah (swt) revealed. Note the above text states that they will claim belief by their tongues, because in their hearts there is no belief. That they already listen to those who lie. They take from people who lie. That in turn also distorts the oral transmission.
“So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort (yuḥarrifūna) words upon delivery (mawāḍiʿihi) and have forgotten(wanasu) a portion of that of which they were (dhukkiru) reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good.” (Qur’an 5:13)
People think that the above text is speaking about scribal alterations to a text. Not at all! The text speaks about something more sinister. The above text is speaking about the oral corruption of the revelation before it becomes committed to text.
So what we can see from the Qur’an 2:75 is that they received revelation and knowingly distorted it during the oral transmission process. We can also see from the Qur’an 5:13 that many of them forgot (wanasu) through the oral transmission process.
We see this same charge directed pointedly towards the Christians.
“And with those who say ‘We are Christians’ We took a covenant; and they have forgotten (fanasū) a portion(ḥaẓẓan) of that they were reminded of. So We have stirred up among them enmity and hatred, till the Day of Resurrection; and Allah will assuredly tell them of the things they wrought.” (Qur’an 5:14)
You can see that the Christians forgot (fanasu) similar to the Jews (wanasu) through the oral transmission process. In fact, it says immediately after, “So we have stirred up among them enmity and hatred.” — The Christians, due to these errors in their transmission process, became a point of strife among them.
For example:
“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the cosmic spirits of this world rather than on Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)
So, in what has passed, there is nothing in those texts that would even remotely suggest to Muslims that the Jews or Christians possess sacred scripture that would not have been free from this. Every text (including the Qur’an) starts as an oral transmission.
ORAL TRANSMISSION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)
There are a few things to unpack here.
This writer (whom tradition says is Luke) does not claim to be an eyewitness to said events that he is about to write about.
His book was based upon oral transmission that was given to him from those who were eyewitnesses.
He does not state if he is receiving information directly from the eyewitnesses or how many links there are in the chains of transmission. In Islam, such a person who transmitted oral reports from the Blessed Prophet (saw) would be known as Mudallas.
This individual, “Luke”, is aware of other written reports, of which he claims his will be ‘orderly’.
This individual, ‘Luke’, feels that his task in writing his document is to give an orderly account that will let this individual (Theophilus) to have certainty.
Most striking of all, this person is not making any claim to write under the inspiration or authority of God.
“Different ways of reporting, e.g. (he narrated to us), (he informed us), (I heard), and (on the authority of) are used by the reporters of hadith. The first three indicate that the reporter personally heard from his shaikh , whereas the fourth mode can denote either hearing in person or through another reporter.”
Keep in mind that the type of attack against Islam on whether the Qur’an affirms the scriptures of Judaism or any number of competing Christian canons is an attack born of the Protestant tradition.Catholics and Orthodox Christians did not develop this line of attack. Nor do they employ them unless they are among the useful ‘idiots’.
Do note the position of the Roman Catholic Church.
“It is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed.Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of devotion and reverence” (Dei Verbum 9)
“The first objection creates more questions than it answers. However, nowhere in scripture does Jesus command that all or part of what He said should be written down. Jesus Himself never wrote anything down, except in the sand.”
“Nor do the Scriptures make clear what was transmitted orally, so we have no way to know if some or anything of what was said was ever written down. John, at the end of his Gospel, makes the statement the world could not contain all the books that could be written about Jesus (John 21:25). Surely, there is much that was passed down orally that was never written down. Our Bible is simply too small to contain it all!”
except in the sand
“This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground.” (John 8:6-8)
What is striking and fascinating to Muslims is that the one place where Christ Jesus is said to have written anything is in a text that Christians now dispute as being an interpolation!
Your Bible likely has brackets around this story with a note that says something like “The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53-8:11.” The majority of scholars believe a later Christian scribe inserted the passage into John’s Gospel at John 8:1-8:11
This is also interesting considering the following text:
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” (Matthew 24:35)
So Christians have had to come up with alterative ways of understanding the above text beyond the obvious and apparent meaning.
Also, keep in mind that, according to Christians, Jesus, who is supposed to be God in the Human Flesh, was walking around on Earth for 30 years and the New Testament has very little to say about it at all.
“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 can you imagine that the Holy Spirit (God the Third of Three) is inspiring someone to write like this? That Jesus was ‘about’. That he was the son ‘so it was thought’.
What percent of 33 is 30? The answer: 90.91. So the New Testament leaves out approximately 91% of the life of Christ Jesus!
The New Testament holds oral traditions both in a positive light and not in a positive light. It seems to distinguish between those traditions given by men and those approved of by God.
“In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the traditions you received from us.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6)
So, here a command is given to this particular audience to actually ostracize and keep away from those people who do not hold fast to the traditions.
“Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.” (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2)
So, here the early community is being warned to be careful of letters falsely penned in Paul’s name or oral transmissions that claim to come from authority but are not.
“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions we passed on to you, either by our spoken word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
“And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13)
“I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.” (1 Corinthians 11:2)
“And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.” (2 Timothy 2:2)
“That what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’” (Matthew 2:23)
There is no such prophecy written any where in the TNCH (what Christians call the Old Testament). Christians have tried and failed to deal with this. The most successful response is what the text says, spoken. In other words this came from an oral tradition.
There are examples where the oral tradition is not held in high esteem.
“They are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.” (Matthew 15:6)
“You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!” (Mark 7:8-9)
“Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.” (Mathew 15:9)
So, for example, in the Qur’an we are told concerning the Christian tradition of celibacy and becoming Monks and Nuns.
“Then in the footsteps of these, We sent Our messengers, and We sent Jesus, son of Mary, and granted him the Gospel, and instilled compassion and mercy into the hearts of his followers. As for monasticism, they made it up—We never ordained it for them—only seeking to please Allah, yet they did not observe it strictly. So We rewarded those of them who were faithful. But most of them are rebellious.” (Qur’an 57:27)
This teaching is self-destructive, because if the whole of Christianity was to embrace it, it is quite conceivable that their numbers would diminish.
We can see the destructive cost of having low populations in places like Japan and the alarm bells are ringing in many countries to encourage their people to populate.
This goes against an earlier teaching that they claim is from God, namely: “God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:28)
Allah says, ‘yet they did not observe it strictly’ and we know this because when suppressing one’s natural sexual urges they end up violating small children, being involved in homosexual relationships etc.
So, when we hear that this is a teaching attributed to Jesus (as) we categorically reject it.
“For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” (Matthew 19:12)
“Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not” (1 Corinthians 7:27-29)
“These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goes. These were redeemed from among men, being the first-fruits unto God and to the Lamb” (Revelations 14:4)
You see how the above verse makes women and sexuality something of the flesh, dirty and vile. Most unfortunate.
How did this tampering of the oral tradition start?
This is a rather straightforward in that tradition itself asserts that John the Baptist (Yahya) and Christ Jesus (Isa ibn Maryam) were killed.
Thus, those that, from the perspective of Muslims (The Prophets themselves) that could exercise authority over the process of what is /is not the Injeel were eliminated.
So, relying upon the oral tradition of which the Qur’an mentioned, there was faulty memory involved. This cannot be a ground upon which one places certainty and /or eternal security.
So, relying upon oral tradition, the Gospels, according to Mark and Luke, say some very embarrassing things about why women went to the tomb of Jesus (as).
“When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.” (Mark 16:1)
“On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.” (Luke 24:1)
Why do Jewish women bring spices to anoint a dead body? This is absolute nonsense.
In Islam and in Judaism, men wash the bodies of men (even your own wife does not wash your body) and women wash the bodies of women (even your own husband does not wash your body).
That being said, the idea that women would be coming to anoint the dead body of Jesus (as) is ludicrous.
Bodies are not anointed or bound AFTER they have been buried or entombed! Bodies are anointed with spice BEFORE they are buried, in order to mask the smell during display.
Can you think of any example in history when a body was anointed with spice or fragrance after burial or entombment?
This is total and utter nonsense.
The TNCH itself gives an example of this:
“They buried him in the tomb that he had cut out for himself in the City of David. They laid him on a bier covered with spices and various blended perfumes, and they made a huge fire in his honor.” (2 Chronicles 16:14)
“And with those who say ‘We are Christians’ We took a covenant; and they have forgotten (fanasū) a portion(ḥaẓẓan) of that they were reminded of. So We have stirred up among them enmity and hatred, till the Day of Resurrection; and Allah will assuredly tell them of the things they wrought.” (Qur’an 5:14)
“And do not be like those who forgot Allah, so He made them forget themselves. It is they who are rebellious.” (Qur’an 59:19)
This word, fanasu -forgotten, comes to us by two meanings:
A type of forgetfulness—like when Adam ate from the tree.
An intentional neglect where you want to avoid something so you pretend to forget.
Those who forgot Allah. They forgot who he really is, did not appraise him with a proper appraisal, so Allah made them forget the straight path.
The Qur’an tells us that the Christians, because of his second type of fanasu in relating the revelation, it became a point of strife and hatred among them.
How many actual words attributed to Jesus are even in the New Testament?
Next you have to take into account, that according to the document of the New Testament (27 book canon and not the 22 book New Testament or the 35 book New Testament that rival Christians hold as canon; that the actual number of words attributed to Christ Jesus are (once you exclude the duplication of Jesus’s speeches in the four accepted gospels), the total number of words spoken by Jesus is 31,426.
So we have about 4 hours of reading the words attributed to Jesus.
In the 27 New Testament book canon accepted by Latin Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox and most Protestants, the following words are attributed to Jesus outside the Four Gospels.
Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. 9:8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. 9:9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink. 9:10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. 9:11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, 9:12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. 9:13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: 9:14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 9:16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.
11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
18:9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: 18:10 For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.
20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.
22:7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 22:8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. 22:10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.
22:18 And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me. 22:19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: 22:20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.22:21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.
23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
26:14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 26:15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; 26:17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
1 Corinthians 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
2 Corinthians 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
Romans (no words of Jesus) Galatians (no words of Jesus) Colossians (no words of Jesus) 1 Timothy (no words of Jesus) 2 Timothy (no words of Jesus) Ephesians (no words of Jesus) Philippians (no words of Jesus) 1 Thessalonians (no words of Jesus) 2 Thessalonians (no words of Jesus) Hebrews (no words of Jesus) James (no words of Jesus) Titus (no words of Jesus) Philemon (no words of Jesus) 1 John (no words of Jesus) 2 John (no words of Jesus) 3 John (no words of Jesus) Jude (no words of Jesus) 1 Peter (no words of Jesus) 2 Peter (no words of Jesus)
Revelation
If we are to grant a 27 NT Canon as opposed to the 22 or 35 book New Testaments that were in dispute among Christians in the time of the Blessed Prophet (saw). 19/27 have absolutely no words of Jesus in them at all! 1 Cor 11:24 & 2 Cor 12:9 The rest of these two letters nothing.
This means only the Four traditional Gospels, the Apocalypse of John, and the Book of Acts are the only NT books that have words attributed to Jesus in them! (other than the 2 Corinthians citations) Most Christians do not stop to think about this.
So Muslims have very little to work with in terms of what is actually attributed to Christ Jesus. This becomes compounded by the fact that what we have to work with presents us with a plethora of contradictions and errors. The corruption of the revelation that took place during the oral tradition becomes evident.
“Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction.” (Qur’an 4:82)
So how do we know what is from Allah or not? Is to apply for this test. A test that Christians often wish to quickly escape from or divert the topic away from.
We are personally not bothered by the issue of preservation. In the sense that if Christians want to imagine that their text has been preserved intact, we will offer little push back against such a claim.
Christian Circular Reasoning. Where is authority derived from?
Our first contention is that a certain text is actually a revelation to begin with.
“And how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.All Scripture God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:15-17)
Most translations are dishonest and will say something like the following:
“All Scripture is God-breathed.” However, this is not in the Greek text at all.
Lastly, how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures or the ἱερὰ -heira γράμματα grammata, could only be a reference to the TNCH. Because there were no New Testament writings when Timothy was an infant.
None of that substantiates the New Testament as authoritatively from God. Not only this, but one of the documents called ‘Hebrews’ the authorship is in dispute, (among Christians themselves!)
Of the 27 books of the New Testament (according to the West), not the 22 books of the New Testament (according to Churches in the East) nor the 35 books of the New Testament (according to the Oriental Orthodox Ethiopian Church), Paul wrote 13/14 of them.
So, according to the 27-book New Testament canon, Paul wrote 48% of the New Testament. According to the 22 book New Testament canon, Paul wrote 59% of the New Testament.
Paul’s Unconfirmed “Conversion”.
Question: Did Paul convert to the teachings of Jesus?
Answer: No!
The only testimony we have that Paul is a ‘disciple’ of Jesus is Paul’s own contradictory accounts in Acts chapters 9, 22 and 26.
Acts 9:7 says:
“The men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.”
Acts 22:9 says:
“And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me.”
Acts 26:14 says:
“And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul Saul why persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the pricks.”
Prima Qur’an Comment: All these instances in which Paul speaks about Jesus speaking to him for the first time are obviously flat lies.
Not only that but in Acts 22:9 it says the same people traveling with him “saw indeed the light“.
This is very strange because Paul also says in Acts 26:23
“At midday, O King, I saw in the way a light from heaven, Above the brightness of the sun, shining around me and Them which journeyed WITH me.”
Besides the above contradictions, Paul said this light was brighter than the sun and that those with him “saw indeed the light“ yet read the following:
“And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened he saw no man, but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.” (Acts 9:8-9)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Now this light was “brighter than the sun,” yet his companions were fine! Paul’s whole “conversion” story is a fabrication.
Establishing testimony for yourself according to Christ Jesus.
“But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more that in the mouth of two or three witness every word may be established.” (Matthew 18:16)
Prima Qur’an Comment: According to the criteria set by Christ Jesus, Paul’s testimony of conversion is blatantly false. The only record we have of Paul’s so-called conversion is from the writer Luke. There is no testimonial of the men who traveled with Paul.
The above contradictory accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts chapters 9,22 and 26 render his account baseless!
Two important points about Paul.
1) Paul never met the historical Jesus.
2) Paul only claimed to have met Jesus in a vision of light.
Paul’s ‘vision of light’ was none other than Satan?
“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ And little wonder; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:13-14)
Ponder these text:
I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord.I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows—was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. “I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say or because of these surpassingly great revelations. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. (2 Corinthians 12:1-9)
“For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you.” (1 Corinthians 11:23)
“I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:1-12)
So here Paul has bypassed the disciples and the eyewitnesses. He is claiming direct revelation from Jesus!
Muslims have good grounds to question these assertions of Paul.
My second contention is that what they have that is claimed to be preserved is filled with the errors and contradictions that obviously came from the oral tradition that was relied upon.
The Four Canonical Gospels are works of literary fiction
They are derived from disparate oral traditions, embellishments and outright errors.
Allah (swt) has opened the eyes of some Christians to this. Of recent memory was a Christian who debated many Muslims and skeptics and defended the Christian faith tradition. I am speaking of none other than Mike Licona.
“At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people. 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 27:51-54)
The fact that no one else (outside the New Testament) records this has certainly raised eyebrows. Because Dr. Licona was honest and wrote that he thought that this was basically fiction. His fellow Christians hammered him for it!
“Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.” (Luke 23:46)
“When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” (John 19:30)
We cannot know the so-called dying words of Jesus or, in light of these contradictions, that there were any at all.
Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?
“And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” (Matthew 1:16)
“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)
Jesus descended from which son of David?
“And Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife, (Matthew 1:6)
“The son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David.” (Luke 3:31)
“When the evening came, they brought unto him MANY that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed ALL that were sick.” (Matthew 8:16)
“And at evening, when the sun did set, they brought unto him ALL that were diseased and them that were possessed with devils. And ALL the city was gathered together at the door. And he healed MANY that were sick of diverse diseases, and cast out MANY devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.” (Mark 1:32-34)
Prima Qur’an Comment: The Greek word for many is (pantas) and the Greek word for all is (pollous).
Matthew saw some deficiency in a Jesus that only healed many, so he switched the Greek words around. A Jesus who can heal all is better than a Jesus that can only heal many.
Another example:
“And there came a voice from heaven, saying YOU ARE my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:11)
“And lo a voice from heaven, saying, THIS IS my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17)
Prima Qur’an Comment: The Greek word for you is su and the Greek word for this is would be (outos). Mark held that Jesus was the adopted son of God, called adoptionist theology. Matthew felt Jesus already knew who he was because he was the son of God based on the Virgin birth and therefore did not need to be told who he was. He changes the wording of the voice, so the people are addressed.
Another example:
“While he spoke these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is EVEN NOW DEAD: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.” (Matthew 9:18)
“And sought him greatly, saying, My little daughter LIES AT THE POINT OF DEATH: I pray thee, come and lay hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live.” (Mark 5:23)
Prima Qur’an Comment:
The Greek term for the deceased is (teleute). Again, Matthew thought that a Jesus who could save a dead person was going to be more illustrious than a Jesus who merely saved a dying person. So this contradiction is the result of the developing theology surrounding the person of Jesus.
Another example:
“And when he knew it of the Centurion, he gave the body to JOSEPH. And HE brought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulcher which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulcher.” (Mark 15:45-46)
“And though THEY found no cause of death in him, yet desired THEY Pilate that he should be slain. And when THEY had fulfilled all that was written of him, THEY took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulcher.” (Acts 13:28-29)
Prima Qur’an comment: This goes back to the conflict on whether Jesus killed and was impailed on a tree or rather he was nailed to a Patibulum (T tau or + cross-shaped fixture)-while alive. Here it says the same Jews who desired his death put him in the tomb and not Joseph.
Another example:
“And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him A CENTURION, beseeching him,” (Matthew 8:5)
“And a certain centurion’s servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die. And when he heard of Jesus, HE SENT UNTO THEM ELDERS OF THE JEWS, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.” (Luke 7:2-3)
Prima Qur’an Comment:
The Greek phrase for older men is (presbuteros). The Greek word for centurion is (hekatontarchos) The reason this exists has more to do with oral tradition than ideas either of the writers had.
“In the prophet Isaiah it stands written: “Here is my herald whom I send on ahead of you, and he will prepare your way. A voice crying aloud in the wilderness, ‘ Prepare a way for the Lord; clear a straight path for him.'” (Mark. 1:2·3)
This quote is not directly the text of Isaiah, for he is clearly unaware that half his quotation, supposedly from lsaiah 40:3, is not from Isaiah at all, but is a misquotation of Malachi 3:1, which actually reads, “I am sending my messenger who will clear a path before me.”
These mistakes are typical for drawling from oral traditions.
On and on and on this goes. It is very clear that what Allah (swt) said about oral transmission being the cause of distortion is factual and indisputable.
If you are interested in reading more, we would recommend:
Prima Quran 