Al-Maktabah as-Salafiyyah
Islam Upon the Way of the Righteous Predecessors
- Purifying the Way
Mankind's corruption of the Bible
Misheal al-Kadhi
Bismillaahir-Rahmaanir-RaheemThis file is available as an original ms-word document in three parts to download.
You may find this formatted better... Enjoy...
» bib1.doc 143K
» bib2.doc 179K
» bib3.doc 197K
««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
Assalam alaikum. Inshallah this will be a document which will prove the claims of
the Qur'an regarding the Bible.
Let us start with a clear prophesy of Mohammed (pbuh) in the Bible:
Three distinct prophesies:
In the Bible we read of the test that the Jews applied to Jesus (pbuh) inorder
to ascertain is truthfulness. The Jews had a prophecy thatrequired Elias to
come before Jesus (pbuh):
"Elias verily cometh first" Mark 9:12.
They had not seen Elias yet so they doubted the claim of Jesus (pbuh).
Jesus, however, responded to them that Elias had already come but that they
did not recognise him.
In Matthew 17:12-13 we read: "But I say unto you, That Elias is come
already, and they knew him not.........Then the disciples understood that he
spake unto them of John the Baptist".
John, however refutes the claims of Jesus (pbuh). This is one of the
Christian's "dark sayings ofJesus" that their scholars have tried to reconcile
for centuries. We will leave this matter for them to work out among
themselves.
Now, in John 1:19-21 we read "And this is the record of John, when
the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art
thou?.
And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I AM NOT THE CHRIST.
And they asked him, What then? ART THOU ELIAS?
And he saith, I am not.
ART THOU THAT PROPHET?And he answered, No".
We notice that there are three distinct prophecies here: 1) Elias,
2) Jesus, 3) That prophet.
The Jews were not waiting for two prophecies, but three. This can be further
clarified by reading
John 1:25:
"And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou
be:a) not that Christ,b) nor Elias,c) neither that
prophet?"
If "that prophet" were Jesus (pbuh) wouldn't the third question in both verses
be redundant?. If we are to believe that "that prophet" is the holy ghost,
then did John look like a ghost?. Further, we must
remember that "That prophet" can not apply to any prophet before the time of
Jesus (pbuh) because at the time of Jesus (pbuh) the Jews were still waiting
for all three. Notice how when we let the Bible speak for itself, without
forcing the holy spirit or other supernatural meanings on it in the commentary,
or forcing three questions to be only two, how clear these verses become.
It is quite obvious from the above verses that the followers of Jesus (pbuh)
recognised that the Jews were waiting for THREE prophesies to be fulfilled.
The Bible, to one degree or another, confirmsthat both the first and second
prophesies were fulfilled. However, it provides no logical explanation for the
third prophesy. As usual, most "professional" Christians with something
to lose by recognising the obvious will tenaciously cling for dear life to the
established beliefs they were taught no matter how clear the evidence is. On
the other hand, those Christians who are sincere are usually the more open
minded and are not prevented by fear of a loss of their job...etc. to seethe
obvious. (ie they seek true guidance to their lord)
Inshallah this is only the first of a series of articles which will prove:1)
That Mohammed (pbuh) was indeed prophsised by Jesus (pbuh) andthe previous
prophets.2) That the "trinity", "son of God", "initial sin", and "atonement"
wereall fabrications of mankind3) The tampering fingers of the unscrupulous
have left countlesscontradictions between the verses of the Bible, such that
some
Christian sources claim that the contradictions number close to 50,000
errors.4) Historical details of when the bible was altered, by whom, why
theydid that, and how it was accomplished.
May Allah almighty guide us to see the obvious and be guided to thetruth of his
elect messenger Jesus (peace be upon him).
Misheal Al-Kadhi
We will continue with two more prophesies of Mohammed (pbuh) in the Bible:
2) Glorifies Jesus (pbuh):
1 John 4:1-3 "Beloved, believe not every spirit (prophet), but try the
spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into
the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth
not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that
spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now
already is it in the world".This one is very easy to understand: Every
prophet who does not confess that Jesus (pbuh) came in the flesh was not sent
by God. He is a false prophet. But any prophet that confesses that Jesus
(pbuh) came in the flesh was sent by God. What does the Qur'an and Mohammad
(pbuh) say aboutJesus (pbuh)?.
They say that a Muslim is not a Muslim if he does not believe in Jesus
(pbuh), in his miraculousbirth, in his giving life to the dead by God's
permission, in his healing of the lepers and the blind by God's permission, in
his piety and chastity, in his truthfulness, and in the fact that he was the
Messiah (the Christ).
The Qur'an is practically overflowing with verses to this effect. For
example, in A'al-Umran(3):40 we read:
"And the angles said `O Mary, Allah gives you glad tidings of a Wordfrom
Him, his name is Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Highhonoured in this world and the
next, of those near stationedto Allah"
So now we must ask: Has Mohammad (pbuh)fulfilled this criteria or not?.
Also, please read theeighth point in the following:
3) A "Paraclete" like Jesus:In the Bible we can find the following four
passages wherein Jesus (pbuh) predicts a great event:
John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another
Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever"
John 15:26 "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from
the Father,
even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify
of me"
John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father
will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to
your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you".
John 16:7-14 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you
that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but
if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove
the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgement:Of sin, because they
believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me
no more; Of judgement, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet
many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the
Spirit of truth, is come,he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not
speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he
will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of
mine, and shall shew it unto you".
In these four verses, the word "comforter" is translated from the
word "Paraclete" ("Ho Parakletos" in Greek). Parakletos in Greek means
an advocate, one who pleads the cause of another, one who councils or advises
another from deep concern for the other's welfare (From the Beacon Bible
commentary volume VII, p.168). In these verses we are told that once Jesus
(pbuh) departs, a Paraclete will come. He will glorify Jesus (pbuh), and he
will guide mankind into all truth. This "Paraclete" is identified in
John 14:26 as the Holy Ghost.
It must be pointed out that the original Greek manuscripts speak of a "Holy
pneuma". The word pneuma {pnyoo'-mah} is the Greek root word for "spirit".
There is no separate word for "Ghost" in the Greek manuscripts, of which there
are claimed to be over 24,000 today. The translators of the King James Version
of the Bible translate this word as "Ghost" to convey their own personal
understanding of the text. However, a more accurate translation is "Holy
Spirit". More faithful and recent translations of the Bible, such as the New
Revised Standard Version (NRSV), do indeed now translate it as "Holy
Spirit". This is significant, and will be expounded upon shortly.
All Bibles in existence today are compiled from "ancient manuscripts", the most
ancient of which being those of the fourth century AD. Any scholar of the
Bible will tell us that no two ancient manuscripts are exactly identical. All
Bibles in our possession today are the result of very extensive
cutting and pasting from these various manuscripts with no SINGLE one
being the DEFINITIVE reference. There are countless cases where a
paragraph shows up in one manuscript but is totally missing from many others.
For instance, Mark 16:8-20 (twelve whole verses) is completely missing from the
most ancient manuscripts available today (such as the Sinaitic Manuscript, the
Vatican #1209 and the Armenian version) but shows up in more recent "ancient
manuscripts". There are also many documented cases where even geographical
locations are completely different from one ancient manuscript to the next.
For instance, in the Samaritan Pentateuch manuscript, Deuteronomy 27:4 speaks
of "mount Gerizim", while in the Hebrew manuscript the exact same verse speaks
of "mount Ebal". From Deuteronomy 27:12- 13 we can see that these are two
distinctly different locations. We could go on and on.
What the translators of the Bible have done when presented with such
discrepancies is to do their best to choose the correct version. In other
words, since they can not know which "ancient manuscript" is the correct
one, they must do a little detective work on the text in order to decide
which "version" of a given verse to accept. John 14:26 is just such an
example of such selection techniques.
John 14:26 is the only verse of the Bible which associates the Parakletos with
the Holy Spirit. But if we were to go back to the "ancient manuscripts"
themselves, we would find that they are not all in agreement that the
"Parakletos" is the Holy Spirit. For instance, in the famous Palimpsest
manuscript of the Bible, written in the Syriac (around the fourth century AD.),
John 14:26 only mentions a "Spirit" and not a "Holy Spirit" (Remember,
Christ and his disciples' native tongue was Aramaic or Syriac).
Are we just knit picking?. "Spirit" or "Holy Spirit",what's the
big deal?. Obviously they both refer to the same thing. Right?. Wrong!.
There is a big difference.A "spirit", according to the language of the
Bible simply means "a prophet" (see for instance 1 John 4:1-3: "Beloved,
believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because
many false prophets are gone out into the world", also see 1 John 4:2), or an
inspired human, for example read 1 Corinthians 2:10, 2 Thessalonians
2:2,...etc.
We will describe in the future inshallah countless documented admitted cases of
deliberate modification of the Biblical text by members of the Christian
clergy themselves, as well as deliberate large scale projects to
"correct" the Bible, and the writings of "the early fathers", by them
(such as the deliberate insertion of the verse of 1 John 5:7 which is
now universally discarded). It is, therefore, possible that either:
1) The word "Holy" could have been dropped by a careless copyist., or
2) A copyist could have inserted the word "Holy" to convey his personal
understanding of the text.
Which was it?. In order to arrive at the answer we must follow the same path
of detective work the Biblical scholars themselves do. We must study the
characteristics of the "Paraclete" and compare them to both the "Holy Spirit"
and to a "spirit". Muslims believe that Mohammad was the one intended and not
the Holy Ghost. In the Christian's own "Gospel of Barnabas" Mohammad is
mentioned BY NAME here. The Trinitarian church, however, has done it's
utmost to obliterate all existing copies of "The Gospel of Barnabas", and to
hide it from the masses (God willing, the details of this will be presented in
future posts). For this reason, it becomes necessary to show that even the
Gospels adopted by Paul's church also originally spoke of Mohammad (pbuh).
1) Does the Holy Spirit "speak" or "inspire":
The Greek word translated as "hear" in the Biblical verses ("whatsoever
he shall hear, that shall he speak") is the Greek word "akouo" {ak-oo'-o}
meaning to perceive sounds. It has, for instance, given us the word
"acoustics", the science of sounds. Similarly the verb "to speak" is the Greek
verb "laleo" {lal-eh'-o} which has the general meaning "to emit sounds" and the
specific meaning "to speak". This verb occurs very frequently in the Greek
text of the Gospels. It designates a solemn declaration by Jesus (pbuh) during
his preachings (For example Matthew 9:18). Obviously these verbs require
hearing and speech organs in order to facilitate them. There is a distinct
difference between someone "inspiring" something and his "speaking" something.
So the Paraclete will "hear" and "speak", not "inspire".
Mohammad (pbuh), as seen above, did indeed fulfil this prophesy. Whatsoever he
"HEARD" from Gabriel (The Qur'an), the same did he physically
"SPEAK" to his followers. In the Qur'an we read: Al-Najm(53):1-4:
"(God swears) By the star when it falls:
Your comrade (Mohammad) errs not, nor is he deceived;
Nor does he speak of (his own) desire.
It is naught save a revelation that is revealed (unto him)".
2) The Holy Ghost was already with them:
In the above verses we read "if I go not away, the Comforter will not come
unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you". The comforter can
not be the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost (according to the Bible) was
"with" them already (and even quite active) long before the coming of
Jesus (pbuh) himself and then throughout his ministry. Read for example.
1 Samuel 10:10 "And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of
prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among
them".
1 Samuel 11:6 "And the Spirit of God came upon Saul when he heard those
tidings, and his anger was kindled greatly".
Isaiah 63:11 "Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people,
saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of
his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?"
Luke 1:15 "For he (John the Baptist) shall be great in the sight of the
Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled
with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb".
Luke 1:41 "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation
of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy
Ghost:"
Luke 1:67 "And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and
prophesied, saying,"
Luke 2:26 "And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost (Simeon), that he
should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ."
Luke 3:22 "And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon
him (Jesus), and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son;
in thee I am well pleased."
However, probably the clearest of all verses is:
John 20:21-22 "Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my
Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed
on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:".
Did they or did they not already receive the Holy Ghost?. Was Jesus
(pbuh) not still with them when they received the Holy Ghost?. Was the Holy
Ghost not with Peter and Paul and many others while Jesus was still with them?.
Was the Holy Ghost not with Elisabeth and Zacharias before the birth of Jesus
(pbuh)?. Was the Holy Ghost not with Moses (pbuh) when he parted the seas?.
There are countless more similar verses to be found in the Bible. In the above
verses, we are told that if Jesus (pbuh) does not depart then the "parakletos"
will not come. Thus, the "Holy Ghost" cannot be the one originally intended
since it was already with them. The contradiction is quite obvious.
3) Selective translation,: Jesus (pbuh) too is a Paraclete:
The word "Paraclete" is applied to Jesus (pbuh) himself in
1 John 2:1 "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin
not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate(parakletos) with the Father, Jesus
Christ the righteous:".
Notice how the translators have managed to translate this exact same
word one way (advocate) inreference to Jesus (pbuh) and another (comforter)
with regard to the coming "parakletos". Why would they want to do such
a thing?. Does this not seem just a little peculiar?. The reason is that the
translators did not want the Christians, after reading "we have an
advocate(parakletos) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" to then
read "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another
advocate(parakletos)". Can we see why this would make them nervous?.
Well, what was Jesus (pbuh)?. He was a prophet!. Read Matthew 21:11: "...This
is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee". and Luke 24:19: "..Jesus of
Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the
people"...etc. Mohammad (pbuh) was also a prophet of God.
We will demonstrate in the future, God willing ,how the verses of the Bible
themselves prove quite conclusively that Jesus (pbuh) was neither a god nor
part of God almighty, but an elect messenger of God. The concept of his
divinity was concocted by Paul and his ministry during the first three
centuries after the departure of Jesus (pbuh) and is explicitly refuted by the
Bible itself and Jesus' apostles
4) "Another" Paraclete:
Now go back to John 14:16 and notice the words "another Paraclete". If
the comforter is the Holy Ghost then how many Holy Ghost's are there?. The
word "another" is significant. We have already seen how this term is
applied to Jesus (pbuh) himself. In English, "another" may mean "One more
of the same kind" or "one more of a different kind". If the latter
were the one intended then thecurrent Christian interpretation might bear some
merit.
However, if "One more of the same kind" was what was intended then this
is positive proof that the coming Paraclete would be just like Jesus (pbuh), a
human being and a prophet, not a ghost. The actual Greek word used was the
word "allon" which is the masculine accusative form of "allos"
{al'-los}: "Another of the SAME kind". The Greek word for "another of a
different kind" is "heteros" {het'-er-os}.
5) "Parakletos" or "Periklytos"?:
Some scholars believe that what Jesus (pbuh) said in his own Aramaic tongue in
these verses represents more closely the Greek word "Periklytos" which
means the admirable or glorified one. This word corresponds
exactly to the Arabic word "Mohammad" which also means the "admirable
one" or "glorified one". There are several similar documented cases
of similar word substitution in the Bible. It is also quite possible that both
words were contained in the original text but were dropped by a copyist because
of the ancient custom of writing words closely packed, with no
spaces in-between them. In such a case the original reading would have
been: "and He will give you another comforter(Parakletos), the admirable
one(Periklytos)" (See examples of many similar cases in the Biblical
text in "The Emphatic Diaglott").
6) "He" not "It":
Notice the use of "he" when referring to the Paraclete and not
"it". If we read John 16:13, we will find no less than SEVEN
occurrences of the masculine pronoun "He" and "Himself".
There is not another verse in the 66 books of the Protestant Bible or the
seventy three books of the Catholic Bible which contains seven masculine
pronouns, or seven feminine pronouns, or even seven neuter genders. So many
masculine pronouns ill befits a Ghost, holy or otherwise.
Mr. Ahmed Deedat, on page 51 of his booklet "Mohammad, the natural
successor to Christ", says: "When this point of seven masculine pronouns
was mooted by Muslims in India in their debates with the Christian
missionaries, the Urdu (Indian) version of the Bible had the pronouns presently
changed to SHE, SHE, SHE! so that the Muslims could not claim that this
prophecy referred to Muhammed (pbuh) - a man! This Christian deception I have
seen in the Bible myself. This is a common trickery by the missionaries, more
specially in the vernacular. The very latest ruse I have stumbled across in
the Afrikaans Bible, on the very verse under discussion; they have changed the
word "Trooster" (Comforter), to "Voorspraak" (Mediator), and
interpolated the phrase - "die Heilige Gees" - meaning THE HOLY
GHOST, which phrase no Bible scholar has ever dared to interpolate into any
of the multifarious English Versions. No not even the Jehovah's witnesses.
This is how the Christians manufacture God's word".
7) He will guide you into all truth:
In the above verses Jesus (pbuh) is quoted as saying "I have yet many things to
say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of
truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth". What does Jesus (pbuh) mean
by "ye cannot bear them now"?. If we were to read the Bible, we would find
many verses throughout the Bible wherein Jesus (pbuh) bemoans the lack of
understanding he was constantly greeted with from his disciples throughout his
ministry:
Matthew 8:26 "And he(Jesus) saith unto them(the disciples).....O ye of
little faith".
Matthew 14:31 "...and (Jesus) said unto him(Peter), O thou of little
faith".
Matthew 16:8 "he (Jesus) said unto them(the disciples), O ye of little
faith".
Luke 8:25 "And he(Jesus) said unto them(the disciples), Where is your
faith?".
Notice that these are not common Jews who he is saying these words to,
but his own elect disciples. The Bible vividly illustrates how he is
constantly going out of his way to simplify matters for them and to speak to
them as one speaks to little children. However, even at that, they still
misunderstand. He is finally driven to frustration and made to say:
Matthew 15:16 "And Jesus said, Are ye even yet without understanding?".
and
Luke 9:41 "And Jesus answering said, O faithless and perverse generation,
how long shall I be with you, and suffer you?".
We are even told that his own people did not accept him: John 1:11
"He came unto his own, and his own received him not".
Jesus (pbuh) had "all truth", but he could not give it to them because
they were not fit to receive it. Therefore, he told them that another would
come after him who shall guide them into "all truth" which they could
not receive from him. He tells us that the one who will come will "teach
you all things". This one who will guide them into "all truth" is
described as "The spirit of truth". We have already seen how the word
"spirit" in the Bible is synonymous with the word "Prophet".
Mohammed (pbuh), even before he became the prophet of Islam was known among his
people as
"Al-sadik Al-amin", which means "The truthful, the trustworthy".
Thus, it becomes apparent that Mohammed was indeed "the spirit of
truth". Since the departure of Jesus (pbuh) and to this day, the "Holy
Ghost" has not taught mankind a single new truth not revealed by Jesus
(pbuh) himself.
It is important to notice the words "ALL truth" and "MANY
things". "Many" and "All" means more than one. There were many loose ends
left untied by Jesus (pbuh) at the time of his departure because his disciples
could not yet receive them. There were many truths which needed to be
introduced to complete his message, however, it was cut short before he could
complete it. For instance, alcohol abuse is a serious problem in the West.
It is claimed that the United States is home to 11 million alcoholics, and 44
million "heavy drinkers". Many excuses have been made for them because Jesus'
first miracle is claimed to have been the changing of water into wine (John
2:7-10). St. Paul actually encouraged his followers to
"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake
andthine often infirmities" (1 Timothy 5:23).
Now the drunkards are littering the streets. What solution has the
"Holy Ghost" given which Jesus (pbuh) never mentioned?.None!. Mohammed
(pbuh) however, came with the decisive answer: Abolish all drinking. Period!.
He has succeeded where the great "superpower" has failed.
There are countless problems which were left unresolved by Jesus (pbuh) at the
time of his departure which were not resolved until the coming of Mohammed
(pbuh). Not because he did not have the solution, but because his followers
could not bear them. Examples of these problems aregambling, racism, fortune
telling, inheritance, limits of modest clothing, ...etc. Mohammed (pbuh) has
brought answers to all of these problems. Unlike Jesus (pbuh), Mohammad (pbuh)
brought a complete and comprehensive system of law, conduct, punishment, and
worship for all mankind. What new and innovative teachings has the "Holy
Ghost" given for them which were not taught by Jesus (pbuh)?. The Qur'an
says:
"O mankind! The messenger (Mohammad) hath come unto you with the truth from
your Lord. Therefore believe; (it is)
better for you.
But if ye disbelieve, still, lo! unto Allah belongeth whatsoever is in the
heavens and the earth.
Allah is ever Knower, Wise".
8) He shall glorify me:
The Paraclete "shall glorify me" and will "testify of me".
Mohammad (pbuh) did indeed testify of Jesus (pbuh) and did indeed glorify him
and raise him and his mother to their well deserved stations of honour and
piety and even made it an article of faith for every Muslim to bear witness to
this. Just one of the many examples of this is:
"And the angles said `O Mary, Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from
Him, his name is Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, High honoured in this world and
the next, of those near stationed to Allah".
The Qur'an, A'al-Umran(3):40.
Nobody seems to recognise this fact as being at all extraordinary. People
generally look upon the Jews as true worshippers of God and followers of a
legitimate faith, even if they do consider them misguided by not following
Jesus (pbuh) but killing him. Their book is even incorporated into the Bible
as the faultless word of God.On the other hand, Muslims are looked down upon as
followers of a false prophet and as savage blood thirsty terrorists or
barbarians. However, if we were to look at the Jewish opinion of Jesus (pbuh)
we would find that an early reference in the Babylonian "Talmud" says
that "Jeshu ha-Nocri" was a false prophet who was hanged on the eve
of the Passover for sorcery and false teaching. They furtherclaim that
he was a bastard son of a Roman adulterer among many other
allegations.
Mr. Josh McDowell is one of the leading Biblical scholars on the topic of the
Jewish Talmud's view of his "Lord". The Talmud, of course, is the ultimate
authoritative body of Jewish tradition, comprising the Mishnah and Gemara. In
Mr. McDowell's book, "Evidence that demands a verdict", he quotes
extensively from the Jewish Talmud with regard to the official Jewish view of
Jesus (pbuh). The following is a small sampling from pages 85-86 of this
book:
"Tol'doth Yeshu. Jesus is referred to as `Ben Pandera'". Note: `Ben
Pandera' means `son of Pandera'. He was a Roman soldier the Jews allege to
have raped Mary to produce the illegitimate son Jesus (God forbid).Yeb.
IV 3;49a: "Rabbi Shimeon Ben Azzai said (regarding Jesus): `I found a
genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, such-an-one is a bastard
of an adulteress".
Joseph Klausner adds: "Current editions of the Mishnah, add: `To support the
words of Rabbi Yehoshua' (who in the same Mishnah says: What is a bastard?
Everyone who's parents are liable to
death by the Beth Din), that Jesus is here referred to seems to be beyond
doubt..".
Grolier's encyclopaedia tells us that "...the reliable Jewish sources tell
us that he(Jesus) was a Jewish teacher who was put to death for sorcery and
false prophecy and that he had a brother named James.".
At a time when such claims, and many others, were being levelled by the
Jews against Jesus (pbuh), Mohammed (pbuh) revealed the following verses of the
Qur'an:
"Then because of their breaking of their Covenant
and their rejection of the signs of Allah and their slaying of the
Prophets wrongfully
and that they said "Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve
Allah's Word; we need
no more)";
nay but Allah hath set the seal on their hearts for their rejection,
so they believe not save a few. And because of their disbelief and of
their speaking against
Mary a horrendous fabrication". Al-Nissa(4): 155-156
So tremendous a sin is this lie considered with Allah, that it is not
even repeated in the Qur'an. The closest the Qur'an ever comes to actually
reproducing their words is:"Then she (Mary) brought him (Jesus) to her own
folk, carrying him.
They said: O Mary! Thou hast come with a most atrocious thing.
Oh sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man nor was thy mother a
harlot"
Mariam(19):27-28.
"And when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah hath chosen thee, and purified
thee,
and preferred thee above (all) the women of creation.".
The Qur'an, A'Al-Umran(3):42.
9) Sin, righteousness, and error:
The coming paraclete, we are told, will demonstrate the error of the world
regarding sin, righteousness, and judgement "he will reprove the world of sin,
and of righteousness, and of judgement". This is indeed what Mohammed (pbuh)
did. He came to the world to show them howthey had been misguided in "sin"
by believing that mankind can inherit sin (see Ezekiel18:19-20)
and that someone else's sin can be forgiven by the sacrifice of others.
He also showed them how they had been misguided in "righteousness" by
believing that a righteous person is one who has "faith" in the crucifixion and
does nothing else (Romans 3:28), or who believes that another
man's death will make him a righteous person (Romans 5:19). And
they were misguided in "judgement" by believing that they will be judged by
"faith" and other people's deeds and not their own deeds (Mark
16:16), or that God's "judgement" was to punish all mankind for the sin
of one man (Romans 5:16, 5:18).
Mohammed (pbuh) taught that the unscrupulous had altered the words of Jesus
(pbuh) and his faithful followers after their passing. He taught that no one
will be held accountable by God for anyone else's sin. Similarly, no one can
bear my sin. He emphasised that God has made this a life of work and the next
life one of reward and no work.
He also revealed that mankind will be judged one at a time according to their
own individual actions and no one else's.
10) That he may abide with you for ever:
In these verses, Jesus (pbuh) is quoted as saying that the coming Paraclete
will "abide with you forever". What does he mean by this?. Let us read
John 8:51-55
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall NEVER SEE
DEATH. Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham
is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall
never taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead?
and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? Jesus answered, If I
honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom
ye say, that he is your God: Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if
I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him,
and keep his saying".
and also
John 10:28 "And I (Jesus) give unto them (the believers) eternal life; and
they shall NEVER PERISH, neither shall any man pluck them out of my
hand".
Jesus (pbuh) is quoted many times in the Bible as telling his followers
that they will never taste death. However, there is not a single one of them
alive to this day. Was he lying?. Of course not!. As seen above, Jesus'
(pbuh) followers were constantly misunderstanding his words. The were not yet
ready to "bear" his words. He was telling them that a man lives on without
death through his faith.
Jesus' (pbuh) followers will live on through their faith and teachings, Jesus
(pbuh) lives among us through his faith and teachings, and even Abraham (pbuh)
lives on among them and us through his faith and teachings. In a similar
manner, the coming Paraclete will live eternally with us through his faith and
teachings.
The Paracletos will be the last prophet, because he will "abide with you
forever" and "he will guide you into all truth" (Greek "into the whole truth")
and "he shall teach you all things", so there will be no need for any further
prophets. In the Qur'an, al-Ahzab(33):40 we read:
"Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he isthe messenger of
Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; andAllah is Aware of all things".
And al-Maidah(5):3 "This day have I (God) perfected your religion for you
(mankind) and completed My favor unto you, and have chosen for you as religion
AL-ISLAM".
So the religion of Islam is the last message to mankind and it, as well
as the Qur'an, will abide with them forever. To this day, Mohammed (pbuh)
abides with us through the Qur'an and the Sunnah.
Jesus (pbuh) had "the whole truth" and had many things he longed to
teach his disciples but he could not give it to them because they "cannot
bear them now". These matters would only be revealed six centuries later
by God through the agency of Mohammad (pbuh). What new truths has the Holy
Spirit guided us into after the departure of Jesus (pbuh) which Jesus (pbuh)
had no say in?.11) He will show you things to come:
There were many prophesies made in the Qur'an and in the Sunnah (tradition) of
the prophet Mohammed (pbuh) himself. For instance, in the opening verses of the
chapter of al- Room (The Romans), we read:
"The Romans have been defeated. In the lowest land, and they, after their
defeat will be victorious. Within ten years. Allah's is the command in the
former case and in the latter and in that day the believers will rejoice. In
Allah's support to victory. He helps to victory whom He will. He is the Mighty,
the Merciful. It is a promise of Allah. Allah fails not His promise, but most
of mankind know not. They know only some appearance of the life of theworld,
and are heedless of the Hereafter"
When Islam was still in it's infancy and it's followers were being
severely persecuted, tortured, and killed by the pagan idol worshipers of
Arabia (Quraish), there were two "Superpowers" near by. They were the Romans
and the Persians. The pagans of Arabia used to like to see the Persians
victorious against the Romans because the Persians were pagans like them.
However, the Muslims liked to see the Romans victorious because they were
"people of the book". About this time, the Romans suffered a resounding
defeat to the Persians that seemed to signal the end of the Roman empire. The
pagans of Arabia were ecstatic. They went out of their way to hold this defeat
over the heads of every Muslim they would encounter. They said: "Just as
the Christians in Rome have been crushed by the pagans of Persia, so shall we
crush you". This was psychological warfare against the Muslims which they
were adding to the physical torture they were subjecting the Muslims to. It
was at this time that these verses were revealed to Mohammed (pbuh) consoling
him and the Muslims in general that matters were not as they seemed, and that
the Romans would come back and defeat the Persians within "Bidh'u" years.
"Bidh'u" is an Arabic word that means "between three and nine". This prophesy
did indeed come true and the Romans were once again victorious against the
Persians, at the same time, the Muslims achieved their first strategic victory
against the pagans of Arabia. Mr. Abdullah Yusuf Ali, in his commentary on the
Qur'an narrates the following explanation of the above verses:
"The remarkable defeats of the Roman Empire under Heraclius and the straits
to which it was reduced are reviewed in Appendix No. 6 (to follow this Sura).
It was not merely isolated defeats; the Roman Empire lost most of its Asiatic
territory and was hemmed in on all sides at its capital, Constantinople. The
defeat, "in a land close by" must refer to Syria and Palestine, Jerusalem was
lost in 614-15 A.D., shortly before this Sura was revealed. The Pagan Quraish
of Makkah rejoiced at the overthrow of Rome by Persia. They were pro-Persian,
and in their heart of hearts they hoped that the nascent movement of Islam,
which at that time was, from a worldly point of view, very weak and helpless,
would also collapse under their persecution. But they misread the true Signs of
the times. They are told here that they would soon be disillusioned in both
their calculations, and it actually so happened at the battle of Issus in 622
(the year of Hijrat) and in 624, when Heradius carried his campaign into the
heart of Persia (see Appendix No: 6) and the Makkan Quraish were beaten off at
Badr. Bidh'un in the text means a short period-a period of from three to nine
years. The period between the loss of Jerusalem (614-15) by the Romans and
their victory at Issus (622) was seven years, and that to the penetration of
Persia by Heraclius was nine years. See last note. The battle of Badr (2 A.H. =
624 A.D.) was a real time of rejoicing for the Believers and a time of
disillusionment for the arrogant Quraish, who thought that they could crush the
whole movement of Islam in Madinah as they had tried to do in Makkah. but they
were singly repulsed"
There were many other prophesies made by the Qur'an which, without
exception, all came true. Another example would be that of Al-Israa(17):7.
However, we will leave it up to the interested student to research this topic
in order to verify it's authenticity. There are many other points which could
be brought up in this comparison, however, we leave it up to the reader to
study Islam, Mohammad, and the Qur'an, and arrive at their own conclusion with
regard to Mohammad (pbuh) having fulfilled all of the requirements of the
coming"Paraclete".
In the West, people have developed the system of giving people abbreviated
names. For instance, a man called William would be called "Bill" by his
friends, Robert would be called "Bob", Joshua would be called "Josh"....etc.
In a similar manner, Mohammed (pbuh) was known by two names:"Mohammad"
and "Ahmed". I mention this to clarify the following verse:
"And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel!verily! I am the
messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in
the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me,whose
name is Ahmed(the praised one). But when he came to them with clear proofs,
they said: This is clearly magic"The Qur'an, Al-Saf(61):6
May Allah almighty guide us to see the obvious and be guided to the truth of
his elect messenger Jesus (peace be upon him).
Misheal Al-KadhiAssalam alaikum Inshallah this will be the third in the
continuing series of articles which will prove the claims of the Qur'an
regarding the Bible. In the first two post, three very clear prophesies of
Mohammed (pbuh) were presented from the Bible. We will continue with this
first phase of the proof by presenting yet another prophesy of Mohammed (pbuh)
in the Bible (total is now four prophesies of Mohammed pbuh in the Bible) the
second phase of the proof will (by Allahs will) involve the refutal of the
"trinity", "son of God", ...etc...etc. from the words for the Bible itself,
stay tuned: Moses foretells of Mohammad's coming
Deuteronomy 18:18 "I (God) will raise them up a Prophet from
among their brethren, like unto thee (Moses), and will put my words in his
mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him". There
are many verses in the Old Testament that predict the coming of Jesus (pbuh).
This one, however, is not one of them. This can be clearly seen from the
following four points: a) Like unto Moses Muslims believe in all of the
previous prophets. They make no distinction between them, nor do they place
one above the others in piety. However, they are all human, and as humans they
differ from one another in their characteristics. Let us compare these
characteristics: 1) Both Christians and Muslims agree that both Moses
and Mohammad (pbut) had fathers and mothers. They both also believe that Jesus
(pbuh) had only a mother and no father. Therefore, Mohammad is like Moses,
but Jesus is unlike Moses. 2) Both Christians and Muslims believe in
the miraculous birth of Jesus (pbuh), while Moses and Mohammad (pbut) were
born naturally. Therefore, Mohammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike
Moses. 3) Both Moses and Mohammad (pbut) married and begat children.
Jesus (pbuh) never married nor had any offspring. Therefore, Mohammad is
like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses. 4) Moses (pbuh) was accepted
by the Jews and to this day, as a nation, they accept him as their prophet.
Mohammad (pbuh) was accepted by his people, and as a nation, over one billion
Muslims around the world accept him as the prophet of Allah. Jesus (pbuh),
however, was rejected by his people (the Jews) as stated in the Christian's own
Bible: "He (Jesus) came unto his own, but his own received him not"
(John 1:11) Therefore, Mohammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses.
5) Both Moses and Mohammad (pbut) were kings on Earth in the sense
that they had the ultimate power of government, the power to inflict capital
punishment. When the Jews brought before Moses (pbuh) the Israelite who had
been caught collecting firewood on the Sabbath, Moses had him stoned to death
(Numbers 15:36). Mohammad (pbuh) had similar authority. When a woman came
before him confessing (with no witnesses) to having committed adultery, he gave
her a chance to consider the severity of her claim and the punishment she would
receive. When she insisted, he ordered her stoned to death and ordered his
companions to respect her for her ultimate and sincere repentance. Jesus
(pbuh), however, explicitly refuted the claim that he had a kingdom on earth.
When he was dragged before the Roman Governor Pontious Pilate with a charge of
sedition he said: (John 18:36) "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this
world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I
should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence".
Jesus (pbuh) would not resort to lying to save his skin. Thus, he had no
earthly kingdom. Further, in John 8:1-7 we read the story of the woman who was
taken in adultery by the Jews and brought before Jesus (pbuh). They were
hoping to trap him by either having him contradict the laws of Moses (pbuh) by
not stoning her, or by placing him in a bad position with the Roman empire by
taking the law into his own hands and ordering her stoned. Jesus cleverly
extracted himself from this predicament by commanding them: "He that is
without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her". So the woman
was set free. Therefore, Mohammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses.
6) Both Moses and Mohammad (pbut) came with a new and comprehensive
set of laws for their people. Jesus (pbuh), however, as witnessed by Matthew,
claimed to have not introduced any new laws, but to have come to renew the law
of Moses (pbuh) and to have neither added nor subtracted from it. In Matthew
5:17-18 we read: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you,
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from
the law, till all be fulfilled".
Therefore, Mohammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses.
7) Both Moses and Mohammad (pbut) died natural deaths. Jesus (pbuh), is
claimed by the Christians to have died violently on the cross. Therefore,
Mohammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses. 8) Both Moses and
Mohammad (pbut) lie buried in the ground. Jesus (pbuh), however, is claimed by
the Christians to abide in heaven. Therefore, Mohammad is like Moses, but
Jesus is unlike Moses. 9) Most Christians claim that Jesus (pbuh) is
God. No Christian or Muslim, however, claims that Moses or Mohammad (pbut) was
God. Therefore, Mohammad is like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses.
10) Both Moses and Mohammad (pbuh) began their prophetic missions at
the age of forty. Jesus (pbuh) began at thirty. Therefore, Mohammad is
like Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses. 11) Christians claim that
Jesus (pbuh) was resurrected after his death. Neither Muslims nor Christians
claim that Moses or Mohammad was resurrected. Therefore, Mohammad is like
Moses, but Jesus is unlike Moses.
There are many additional points that could be mentioned but we will
suffice with these for now. b) Can not be a Jew Well, is Mohammed
(pbuh) the only prophet who is "Like unto Moses"?. For example, what about
Jesus (pbuh)?. Well, we should then notice that Jesus (pbuh) was a Jew, and
the Bible specifically denies that this awaited prophet will be a Jew. We are
told that in Deuteronomy 34:10 Moses himself says: "And there arose NOT a
prophet since in Israel LIKE unto Moses".
This awaited prophet, however, must be "LIKE unto thee (Moses)". So he
will come from
OUTSIDE of Israel. c) Is from the BRETHREN of the Jews If this
prophet can not be a Jew, then what is left?. In this verse, God speaks to
Moses (pbuh) about the Jews as a racial entity. The awaited prophet is claimed
to not be "from the Jews" or "from among themselves" but rather
"from among their (the Jew's) brethren". Who are the brethren of the
Jewish nation?. The Jews are the sons of Isaac, the son of Abraham. Isaac's
older brother was Ishmael, the father of the Arabs. Thus, the brethren of the
Jewish nation is the nation of the Arabs. This statement is further reinforced
by the following definition of "Brethren" in the Hebrew Dictionary of
the Bible: "personification of a group of tribes who were regarded as
near kinsmen of the Israelites". d) Put my words in his mouth If we
were to read the Qur'an we would find that it contains many verses stating
"I am your Lord, so worship Me" (Al-Anbia: 92, Al-Muminoon: 52),
"Verily, I am Allah" (Taha: 14, Al-Namil: 9, Al-Qasas: 30),
"I am thy Lord" (Taha: 19).
These verses are not preceded by "I heard God say.....", or "And God
said....", or similar statements which would be the words of a man
transmitting the words of God, rather, their form is that of the first person
who speaks of himself. Neither Mohammad (pbuh) nor any Muslim ever claimed
that Mohammad (pbuh) was God, therefore, Mohammad (pbuh) was speaking with his
mouth the words of God. Similarly, we can find in the Qur'an more than four
hundred verses of the form "Say (O Mohammad) : .......". In other words
God almighty is putting His words into Mohammad's (pbuh) mouth and commanding
him to speak them. Christians claim that the Bible has many "authors",
and that while the "inspiration" is from God, still, the words are those
of mortal men.
Dr. W Graham Scroggie of the Moody Bible institute, Chicago, one of the most
prestigious Christian evangelical missions in the world says on page 17 of his
book "It is human, yet divine": "...Yes, the Bible is human,
although some out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied
this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the
language of men, were penned by the hands of men and bear in their style the
characteristics of men...." Another erudite Christian scholar, Kenneth
Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says on page 277 of his book, "The
call of the minaret": ".....Not so the New testament....... There is
condensation and editing; there is choice reproduction and witness. The
Gospels have come through the mind of the church behind the authors. They
represent experience and history....." The Qur'an, however, is both the
inspiration of God and the physical words of God. An example of this is a
teacher who sends two students to teach what they have learned from him. The
first is told to "teach them what I taught you". While the second is
given a textbook written by this teacher and told to read verbatim from
this book and say nothing of his own accord. The first will convey the
thoughts of the teacher. The second will convey both his thoughts and his
words. This matter becomes clearer when studying for example the personal
greetings and salutations of Paul and his friends at the ends of Titus (3:15),
2 Timothy (4:19), 1 Thessalonians (5:26) ..... etc. These words are not the
word of God but the personal greetings of Paul and his friends. There are many
such examples to be found in the Bible.
The Qur'an contains no such verses from Mohammad (pbuh). The words of Mohammed
(pbuh) are collected in a completely separate reference from the Qur'an called
"The Sunnah". We notice from all this that even the Christians
themselves do not claim that the Bible is the physical word of God, but his
"inspiration" (his teachings) through the words of men. The Qur'an,
however, is the physical word of God. GRAVE WARNINGS FOR ALL WHO DO
NOT FOLLOW HIM So what shall we say to those who say: "Jesus has
redeemed us. We have no need to follow any future prophets."?. After the
above verse of Deuteronomy, God himself threatens severe retribution against
all those who do not follow this awaited prophet. In Deuteronomy 18:19 we
read:
"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words
which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him". (or in some
translations: "I will be the revenger") We would like the reader to remember
that Mohammad (pbuh) never in his lifetime claimed that the Qur'an was his
words, but the words of God. He further taught his followers to never recite
any chapter or verse of the Qur'an without first prependingit with the words:
"In the name of God, the gracious, the merciful".
The Qur'an contains 114 Chapters. If we were to follow them on down we
would find that the first chapter, second chapter, third chapter, and so on all
begin with the words "In the name of God, the gracious, the merciful".
On the other hand we will find most Christians will begin with "In the name
of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost". So not only Mohammad
(pbuh), but all Muslims in general recite the words of God in His name.
Indeed, the Qur'an does even confirm this same warning of Deuteronomy:
"And whosoever seeks other than Islam as their religion it will not be
accepted from him, and he shall be in the hereafter among those who have
lost" (A'al Umran(3):85)
Assalam alaikum Inshallah this will be the forth in the continuing series of
articles
which will prove the claims of the Qur'an regarding the Bible. In the first
three post, four very clear prophesies of Mohammed (pbuh) were presented from
the Bible. We will continue with this first phase of the proof by now
branching off to a slightly different topic. The Jews and Christians claim
that no prophet of God can come from OTHER than the Jews. This will be proven
here to be a lie concocted by the Jews in order to promote themselves to the
position of the "chosen children of
God". It will now be proven through the words of their own book how
they have inserted lies and fabrications into their book in order to claim that
prophet Abraham's first son (pbut) was excluded from God's covenant the
upcoming second phase of the proof will (by Allah's will) involve the refutal
of the"trinity", "son of God", ...etc...etc. from the words for the
Bible itself, stay tuned:
1.8: Legitimacy of Hagar as Abraham's (pbuh) wife, Ishmael as his son,
and the blessing of Ishmael:
Many Christians and Jews mistakenly believe that Abraham's descendants through
Ishmael (Mohammad and his ancestors) were excluded from God's promise and
covenant with Abraham (pbuh) because Ishmael's mother Hagar was not a
legitimate wife of Abraham, thus, her son Ishmael (the father of the Arabs) was
not a legitimate son of Abraham. Therefore, they conclude that Ishmael(pbuh)
and his descendants were not included in God's covenant with the sons of
Abraham (pbuh) and that this covenant was exclusive to Abraham's second son,
Isaac, the father of the Jews.
In what follows we will disprove each of these claims, in addition to showing
evidence of human tampering with the text of the Biblical verses.
The story of Ishmael according to the Bible is as follows: Abraham married
Sarah (pbut). Sarah was a barren woman and bore him no children (Genesis
16:1). God then made a great promise to Abraham even before any children
were born to him. Genesis 12:2-3:
"And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make
thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless
thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the
earth be blessed".
Not long after, Sarah gave Abraham her handmaid, Hagar, to be his wife
according to the legal Jewish custom of polygamous marriages (customary in the
Bible among Israelites and even their
prophets).
Genesis 16:3: "And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian,
after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her
husband Abram to be his wife.".
In Genesis 16 we are told that after Hagar (pbuh) became pregnant with
Ishmael, Sarah (pbuh) felt that Hagar despised her, so she dealt with her
harshly until she was forced to escape from this harsh
treatment "And when Sarai dealt harshly with her, she fled from her
face" Genesis 16:6. The angel of God then appeared before Hagar and told
her to return to Sarah and submit herself to her will
and that "the Lord has heard thy affliction" and would reward her with a
son called "Ishmael" (God hears) and would multiply her seed
exceedingly. Hagar willingly bowed to the command of her Lord and returned and
submitted herself to Sarah. In A Dictionary of Biblical tradition in English
literature, we read: "The Jewish Haggadah identifies Ishmael as one of the
six men who were given a name by God before their birth (Ginzberg, LJ
1.239)".
When Abraham reached ninety-nine years of age, Ishmael was thirteen years old
and remained the only son of Abraham. Now, God promises to establish his
covenant with all of Abraham's "seed"
without exception:
"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after
thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee,
and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after
thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an
everlasting possession; and I will be their God.".
In Genesis 17:7-8.
God now informs Abraham that his covenant shall be given through circumcision,
so Abraham immediately circumcises himself and Ishmael, the father of the Arabs
(Genesis 17:23), thus establishing God's covenant with Ishmael.
The significance of circumcision was also noted by Biblical scholars as being
not merely an external act:
"This was His own sign and seal that Israel was a chosen people. Through it
a man's life was
linked with great fellowship whose dignity was it's high consciousness
that it must fulfill the purpose of God" (Interpreter's Bible, p. 613).
To this day, all Muslims practice circumcision. The "sign and seal" of
the Abrahamic covenant.
We notice that God's covenant was promised to be with Abraham's "seed".
But if we read Genesis 21:13 we will find that Ishmael is of Abraham's
"seed":
"And also of the son of the bondwoman......he is thy seed".
The same arguments can be made for God's covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15:18
"the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given
this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river
Euphrates".
As we can see, this covenant was intended to be of the same generality as God's
covenants with Noah (Genesis 9:8-17), and David (2 Samuel 7; 23:5). God's
covenant was intended to be a covenant
with those who are obedient to Him and follow his command, not a covenant that
makes a certain group of people genetically superior and closer to God even
from before their birth, such that they are his "chosen children", and
God's prophethood and message can only come from their lineage.
When Abraham reached one hundred years of age, God blessed him with a second
son, Isaac(Genesis 21:5). Isaac was born to him through his first wife, Sarah.
The Bible tells us that because of
Sarah's jealousy that Ishmael may inherit with her own son Isaac (Genesis
21:10), she had Abraham cast out Hagar and Ishmael and send them to the
wilderness of "Paran" (genesis 21:21). We are told
that she was particularly angry with what she considered to be a mockery on the
part of Ishmael towards her own son Isaac. This incident is alleged to have
occurred after Isaac was weaned
(remember this) as narrated in Genesis 21:8.
Sarah now allegedly ordered Abraham to cast Hagar and Ishmael out, (apparently,
in Abraham's tribe, children who mock their brothers and sisters are to be
thrown out in the nearest desert along with their mothers) Abraham obeyed Sarah
and cast the "bondwoman" and her son in the desert and was blessed by
God who told him to "hearken unto her voice". Abraham gave Hagar
provisions and water and put her child "Ishmael" upon her shoulder and
left them in the wilderness of Beer Sheba in Southern Palestine. When they ran
out of water, an angel appeared and conveyed to her the words of God:
"Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a
great nation".
God then showed her a well of water and they drank. Ishmael dwelt in
the wilderness of "Paran" and begat twelve sons one of whom was called
"Kedar".
The Muslims have a very similar narration of the same sequence of events
in their Qur'an. However, in the Qur'an, the details differ from the narration
of the Old Testament. Muslims are taught in the
Qur'an and the Sunnah that Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Isaac, and Ishmael (pbut)
were, all five, very decent and pious people. Muslims believe that the prophet
Abraham (pbuh) received a revelation from God to take Hagar and her BABY,
Ishmael, to a barren desert in Northern Arabia (Paran), more specifically to
the future location of Mecca, and to leave them there. When Abraham began to
leave,
Hagar called out to him "where are you leaving us?".
After repeating the question three times she asked him "Did God command you
to do this?".
Abraham answered "yes".
So Hagar said: "Then He will not forsake us".
When Hagar and her baby ran out of water she began to fear for her baby's life
and took to running back and forth between the two hills of "Al-Safa"
and "Al-Marwa" in search of water. During
this time God sent an angel who caused water to gush out of the earth for them.
This became the water of the well of "Zamzam" which the pilgrims of
Mecca drink from today. Once water was found in this place the Bedouins began
to settle there and it became the city of Mecca (Makkah). Centuries later,
Mohammad (pbuh), the prophet of Islam, was born to the descendants of Ishmael.
The rights of hastening between the two hills of "Al-Safa" and
"Al-Marwa" have been preserved in the Muslim's yearly pilgrimage to
Mecca even to this day.
The major differences in these two narrations, the Biblical and the Qur'anic,
are in the claim that Hagar was (originally) left in Beer Sheba and not Paran
as stated by the Muslims, and that this occurred when Ishmael was not a baby,
but a full grown teenager.
This Old Testament narration can be found to contain obvious modifications from
the following analysis:
According to the Bible, Abraham was eighty six years old when Ishmael was born
(Genesis 16:16). He was one hundred years old when Isaac was born
(Genesis 21:5).
This makes Ishmael fourteen years older than Isaac.
The above expulsion of Ishmael and his mother is alleged to have occurred after
Isaac was weaned (Genesis 21:8). Muslims wean their children after two
years. Biblical scholars tell us that babies were weaned about the age of
three. This makes Ishmael at least seventeen years old at the time of the
alleged mockery and expulsion. The profile of Ishmael in Genesis
21:14-19 however, is one of a small baby and not that of a full grown
teenager of seventeen years. Let us study it.
1) According to the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible which was
compiled from manuscripts even more ancient than those of the King James
Version of the Bible, the verse of Genesis 21:14 reads
"..putting it on her shoulder, along with the child".
Did Abraham put a seventeen year old boy on Hagar's shoulder??. It would be
more logical for him to put Hagar on Ishmael's shoulder if he were, as claimed,
seventeen years old at the time. So
Ishmael must have been a baby at the time.
2) In Genesis 21:15 we read
"and she cast the child under one of the shrubs"
Did Hagar "cast" a seventeen year old teenager under a shrub??. This
too is consistent with a baby and not a full-grown teenager.
3) We read in Genesis 21:16 that Hagar sat far away from Ishmael
so as not to see him die before her own eyes. Is this the profile of a
full-grown teenager who should, more appropriately be worried about his mother
or of a helpless baby??.
4) In Genesis 21:17 we read the angel's command to Hagar:
"Arise, lift up the lad".
Who would be more capable of lifting the other up, Hagar or her
seventeen year old teenage son?. This too is the profile of a little baby.
5) Throughout this story we are drawn a picture of Hagar doing this, and
Hagar doing that, and Hagar worrying, and Hagar weeping, and so on while
Ishmael sits where he was "cast", under the shrub.
Would a full grown teenager of seventeen sit under a shrub and wait for his
mother and himself to die while his mother looked for water for him, or would
he have her sit in the shade while he went in search of water?.
6) Even the angel did not address both of them but only Hagar, the only
one who would understand. Once again the profile of a baby and not a seventeen
year old teenager.
7) Ishmael is always referred to as "the child" and "the
lad" in the story. Do people usually refer to seventeen year old teenagers
as "child" and "lad"?.
8) In Genesis 21:20 we read that after this incident,
"God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became
an archer".
Is this a profile of a fully developed teenager or a child who is
growing up, learning, and developing?
The above analysis clearly exhibits evidence of human modification to the text
of this story. The claim that Ishmael mocked Isaac and that this had anything
to do with Hagar's journey is an obvious
fabrication since Isaac was not even born yet when this story occurred (Ishmael
was still a baby). The reason for Hagar's journey was not Sarah's jealousy,
Ishmael's mockery, or the racial superiority of
Sarah. It was only the command of God, pure and simple. In an effort to keep
all prophets of God Israelites, even God himself is alleged to have submitted
to, and even blessed the alleged jealous whims of Sarah. Further, if such
elaborate additions to the story could be introduced into the text, then how
much simpler to change the original journey to Paran to become a journey to
Beer Sheba.
The Interpreter's Bible compares the texts of Genesis 21:14-19 with
Genesis 16:1-16 and draws the following conclusion:
"The inclusion in Genesis of both stories so nearly alike and yet
sufficiently different to be inconsistent, is one
of the many instances of the reluctance of the compilers to sacrifice any of
the traditions which has become established in Israel" (emphasis
added).
As damaging and conclusive as this proof of the modification of the Old
Testament is, still, it pales to insignificance before the infinitely more
devastating proof of this same fact to be found in the previous post "proof
that the torah of the Jews was notwritten by Moses".
Some people will now jump up and say: well then, the verses stating Abraham's
age must be the ones which have been (unintentionally) modified. The problem
with this is that first of all, these numbers were spelled out in letters and
not written using numerals. Second, the transmitters of the Old Testament (the
Jews) claim that every word and every letter was faithfully counted and
preserved and thus, they can confidently claim that it would be impossible for
unintentional errors to creep in.
If we are to believe that the most God-fearing people of the time of Abraham
(pbuh) were in the habit of throwing children and their mothers out in the
desert and cutting off their inheritance if they mocked their younger brothers
and that this was justice, then either:
1) The ages are wrong, and Ishmael was not a teenager at the time but a
small child, and thus, an unreasoning child and his mother are abandoned in a
desert, and his inheritance cut off, because of
this innocent child's mockery of his younger brother, and because his step
mother is jealous of his inheritance with her own son. Or,
2) The ages are correct, and Ishmael was a full-grown teenager when he
and his mother were thrown out in the desert and this totally contradicts the
language of the above verses.
We also notice that even in the New Revised Standard version of the Bible,
Genesis 16:16 and 21:5 state the same ages mentioned above.
Is this not proof of the Qur'an's claim that the previous books
of God were changed by the hands of the unscrupulous few?.
It now becomes evident that sometime after God sent down the Old Testament,
someone decided that they did not want the Arab descendants of Ishmael to be
included in God's covenant with Abraham. They wanted it exclusive to the Jews.
Therefore, the Old Testament was "corrected" in order to show that God's
intent was that His covenant be with the Jews only.
Now that we see that the original covenant of God was with all of the children
of Abraham (pbuh) without exception, then we are left with another question:
The Bible describes in great detail the
fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham through Isaac which was fulfilled in
Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, and Jesus (pbut). But what of his
promise to Abraham through Ishmael?. God does not renege on his promises, so
how was it fulfilled?. The Bible is, for the most part, silent about the
promise to the Ishmaelites. Why?.
Because just as Jesus (pbuh), during the time of the Old Testament had not yet
come and there were only prophesies of his coming containing unmistakable signs
but no detailed stories of his life, in
the same manner, both the Old and New Testament contain unmistakable prophesies
of Mohammad (pbuh) but no in-depth analyses and stories.
The Interpreter's Bible admits that the Ishmaelites and other descendants of
Abraham were "somehow participating in the Abrahamic covenant" (page
616). The coming of Mohammad (pbuh), the descendant of Ishmael, is the
fulfillment of this promise.
Some people will claim that even though Ishmael was Abraham's "seed",
still, "seed" is a lesser designation than "son", and only Isaac
was Abraham's "son". However, the Bible also bears witness to the fact
that Ishmael was Abraham's "son": Genesis 17:23:
"And Abraham took Ishmael his son".
Not only that, but the Bible tells us that Ishmael remained the
legitimate son of Abraham until even after his death, Genesis 25:8-9:
"Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and
full of years; and was gathered to his people. And his sons Isaac and Ishmael
buried him in the cave of Machpelah"
So was Ishmael a lesser "son" than Isaac because Isaac's mother was
Abraham's wife while Hagar was not?. Once again, let us read the Bible:
Genesis 16:3:
"And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid....and gave her to her husband
Abram to be his wife."
So the Bible also bears witness that Hagar was Abraham's legitimate
wife.
Once the legitimacy of Hagar as Abraham's wife and Ishmael as his son has been
established, now the objection of many becomes that Isaac was a better and
truer son of Abraham because he was the son
of the free woman not a bondwoman. However, this claim is not supported by the
law of the Jews. According to this law, the first born son was to have double
portions of honor, and even inheritance,
and this right could not be affected by the status of his mother. Deuteronomy
21:15-17
"If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born
him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers
that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which
he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved first born before the son
of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son
of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he
hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is
his".
In the same Interpreter's Bible we read the following comment on the
above verses:
"However, the law of the first-born had ancient sanction, and so long as it
was accepted justice demanded that mere favoritism not be allowed to deprive
the eldest son of his rights"
Abraham was eighty six years old (Genesis 16:16) when Ishmael was
born and was one hundred years old (Genesis 21:5), when he was blessed
with a second son, Isaac (pbuh). So Isaac was fourteen years younger than his
older brother Ishmael, the first-born son of Abraham.
It should further be noted here that a similar occurrence is narrated in the
Old Testament regarding a slave girl named Ruth and a landowner named Boaz
(Ruth, chapters 3 and 4). Ruth, a widowed
slave girl, was married to Boaz and gave him a son named Obed. Obed went on to
become the founder of the royal line of Jews who, according to the Old and New
Testament, were the ancestors of both David the King and Jesus Christ peace be
upon them both (for example Matthew 1:5-16). Not only that, but according to
the same Old Testament, Ruth was a Moabitess (Ruth 2:2). Moabite women,
according to the Old Testament, were women used to lure Israelite men into
immorality and the worship of the pagan god Baal.
So, if a slave woman of a nation of such ill repute among the Jews as the
Moabites is given legitimacy among the Jews and can een go on to become the
ancestor of their greatest prophets and leaders and
indeed Jesus Christ (pbuh) himself, then why is a whole branch of prophet
Abraham's children cast off simply because their mother too was a slave
girl?.
Jacob M. Myers, a professor at the Lutheran Theological Seminary and a
contributor to Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, is a well recognized
leading expert on the Old Testament. In his book
Invitation to The Old Testament (pp. 26) he states the following regarding the
Nuzi laws of marriage of Abraham's (pbuh) time:
"Archaeological discoveries help us to fill in the details of the biblical
narrative and to explain many of the otherwise obscure references and strange
customs that were commonplace in Abraham's world and time...... A Nuzi marriage
contract provides that a childless wife may take a woman of the country and
marry her to her husband to obtain progeny But she may not drive out the
offspring even if she later has children of her own. The child born of the
handmaid has the same status as the one born to the wife. That is why, when
Sarah wanted to drive out Hagar and Ishmael, it was quite objectionable to
Abraham -because of the legal custom of the religion from which he came, he was
reluctant to do so. It required a special divine dispensation to act contrary
to that custom".
We have already seen how the "special divine dispensation" was a
forgery.
Further, while Ishmael was the first begotten son of Abraham, we notice that
Obed was the tenth grandson of Abraham (The Old and New Testament genealogies
differ in the actual names). So, if Obed is given such legitimacy in the Old
Testament as being a legitimate father in their most royal line, even though he
is the son of a bondwoman, then Ishamel's claim to this legitimacy is much
older
and more pronounced.
Once Ishmael has been proven to be a legitimate son of Abraham and not only
equal to Isaac, but according to the law of the Jews, deserving of double the
portion of honor and inheritance allotted to
Isaac, then the final objection becomes that Isaac was specifically chosen to
be the child of promise. In A Dictionary of Biblical tradition in English
literature, we read:
"St. Augustine, in De civitate Dei (15.2), equates Ishmael "born in the
course of nature", with the
flesh and Isaac, "born in fulfillment of a promise" with the spirit.
For Augustine, Ishmael exists outside the realm of God's grace; for this
reason, and because of their enforced wanderings in the desert, he associates
Ishmael and Hagar with Cain".
As we have already seen, God's covenant was with the "seed" of
Abraham (pbuh), among who was Ishmael. Secondly, there are many verses which
specifically single out Ishamel for God's blessing. After the birth of Ishmael
and before the birth of Isaac, God repeats his promise to Abraham to bless all
the earth through his progeny. Genesis 17:4:
"As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of
many nations".
Also, in Genesis 21:13,18 we read:
"And also of the son of the bondwoman (Hagar) will I make a nation, because
he is thy seed.
......... I will make him a great nation".
So, not only is Ishmael a legitimate son of Abraham, but God almighty
promised to bless Ishmael's descendants just as he would in the future promise
to bless Isaac's descendants. Not only that, but God's covenant of
circumcision with Abraham was fulfilled in Ishmael long before the birth of
Isaac.
As will be demonstrated soon by Allahs will, the Bible has been modified
extensively over the ages to the point that it now contains many hundreds of
conflictions between it's verses. Many examples
have been presented. As seen there, thirty two Biblical scholars of the highest
eminence backed by fifty cooperating denominations bore witness to the
"many" and "serious" errors contained in the current King James
Bible. Even the original ancient manuscripts themselves contain many
differences and conflictions. Whole passages show up in some "ancient
manuscripts" while being completely missing from older ones. Even
geographical locations are changed from one ancient copy to the next. All
Bibles in existence today are the result of very extensive cutting and pasting
from these various manuscripts with no single ancient copy being the definitive
reference. Even at that, all Bibles in existence today still contain countless
examples of very serious contradictions of founding Christian doctrine (to be
demonstrated in future posts by Allahs will).
In the Interpreter's Bible we read:
"Many Israelites did not want a God who would be equally the God of all
nations on the Earth. They
did not want one who would be impartial Holiness. They wanted a God who
would be partial to them. So we read in Deuteronomy of the demands for a
complete extermination of all non-Israelite people
of Palestine (Deuteronomy 7:2) and as to the carrying out of that injunction
read the harsh sentences of Deuteronomy 20:10-17".
Is it possible, in light of the overwhelming evidence beginning to come to
light of the modification of the Old Testament, that the transmitters of this
book (Genesis) made certain modifications to favor their own people?. Sound
impossible?. We have already seen the evidence.
Such verses as Genesis 17:21 and Genesis 21:21 do not exclude Ishmael from
God's covenant as some claim. The example of this is one who says: "I love my
parents" and then a few days later says "I
love my mother". Does this mean that he does not love his father?.
Since God had already consecrated his covenant between Abraham and his son
Ishmael before the birth of Isaac, and Abraham had already circumsised Ishmael
so that he might receive God's covenant, therefore, it was necessary for him to
reaffirm that Isaac was not left out of this covenant even though it was
established after the birth of Ishmael and before his own birth.
Many people point to the verse of Genesis 22:2 as proof that Isaac was the only
legitimate son of Abraham. We read:
"And he (God) said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou
lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt
offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of".
What is going on here?. On the one hand we have verses such as Genesis
16:15, Genesis 17:23, Genesis 17:25, Genesis 17:26, and Genesis 25:9...etc.
which clearly confirm the fact that not only was
Ishmael the first born son of Abraham and a legitimate son, but he remained so
until the day Abraham died and was buried. On the other hand we have Genesis
22:2 which claims that Isaac, Abraham's second son is the only son of
Abraham.
To understand this we need to go back to the Qur'anic version of this story.
In the Qur'an we are told that Abraham was deprived children until his old age
whereupon he was given Ishmael, his first
born son. Up until this point the Qur'an and the Old Testament are in
agreement. It stands to reason that after having been deprived an heir for so
long Abraham would become extremely attached to his
only begotten son Ishmael. For all he knew then he very likely might not be
blessed with any more children before his death. We are now told in the Qur'an
that Allah (God) almighty decided to test
Abraham's faith. He therefore decided to set up a test for Abraham in the one
thing which he held most dear to his heart in all of this world: His only son.
God almighty showed Abraham a vision
wherein he sacrificed his only son Ishmael to God. Upon awakening, Abraham
realized that this was no regular dream but a vision and command from God
almighty. When Ishmael reached the age of
striving, Abraham went to him and asked his opinion on this matter. This was
not an attempt by Abraham to escape the command of God, but only an attempt to
better prepare his son. Ishmael replied to his father:
"O my father, Do as you are commanded. You shall by Allah's will find me to
be among the patient".
We are told that the devil then came to Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael in turn
trying to convince each one to disobey the command of Allah. Each one in turn
did not respond to him and cast stones at
him till they drove him away. This act is also preserved to this day in the
Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca in the symbolic act of stoning the three pillars
called the "jamarat".
Abraham took his son Ishmael and placed him on the ground facing down so
that he would not have to look at him. Just when he was about to sacrifice
Ishmael God sent an angel to Abraham to stop
him and to provide him with a ram as an alternate sacrifice in place of his son
as a reward for his sincere intentions. He then further rewarded Abraham with
Isaac, a great and pious prophet as a second son. This story can be found in
the Qur'an in Al-Safat(37): 100-113:
Abraham prayed: "My Lord! grant me (a son) of the righteous. So We gave him
tidings of a gentle son(Ishmael). And when he was old enough to strive with
him, he said: O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice you.
So look, what do you think? He said: O my father! Do that which you are
commanded. Allah willing, you shall find me of the steadfast. Then, when they
had both surrendered (to Allah), and he had placed him upon his forehead, We
called unto him: O Abraham: You have (already) fulfilled the vision. Lo! thus
do We reward the good. Lo! that verily was a clear test. Then We ransomed him
with a tremendous victim. And We left for him among the later folk (the
salutation):'Peace be unto Abraham!' Thus do We reward the good. Lo! he is
one of Our believing slaves. And We gave him tidings of the birth of Isaac, a
Prophet of the righteous. And We blessed him and Isaac. And of their seed are
some who do good, and some who plainly wrong themselves.
And We verily gave grace unto Moses and Aaron, And saved them and their
people from the great distress, And helped them so that they became the
victors. And We gave them the clear Scripture And showed them the right path.
And We left for them, among the later folk (the salutation): 'Peace be unto
Moses and Aaron!' Lo! thus do We reward the good. Lo! they are two of our
believing slaves."
We notice that the major difference in the Qur'anic verses the Biblical
versions is that the Qur'an claims that it was Ishmael (The father of the
Arabs) who was to be sacrificed, while the Old
Testament claims that Isaac (The father of the Jews) was the one to be
sacrificed. However, if we study the verse of Genesis 22:2 we will find the
words "thy son, thine only son". Isaac was never Abraham's only son.
As we have seen, Ishmael was born before Isaac and remained (according to the
testimony of the Bible) the legitimate son of Abraham until AFTER his
death. As we have already proven, the story of God's command to cast out
Ishmael and his mother is a fabrication. The only son of Abraham who was ever
Abraham's "only" son was Ishmael. This was during the fourteen year
period after the birth of Ishmael but before the birth of Isaac. Notice how by
changing this one word from "Ishmael" to "Isaac" an entire branch
of Abraham's descendants (The Arabs) are conveniently excluded from God's
covenant and it becomes exclusive to the Jews?. Once Ishmael is reinstated as
the one mentioned in Genesis 22:2 then the stories in the Bible begin to make
sense once again.
In Encyclopedia Judica Jerusalem, volume 9, under the heading "Ishmael",
we read:
"It is related that a renowned traditionalist of Jewish origin, from Qurayza
tribe and another Jewish scholar who converted to Islam, told Caliph Omar ibn
'Abd al-'Aziz (717-20) that the Jews were well informed that Ismail (Ishmael)
was the one who was bound, but they concealed this out of jealousy".
May Allah almighty guide us to see the obvious and beguided to the truth of his
elect messenger Jesus (peace be upon him).
Misheal Al-Kadhi
This is part 5 of the ongoing series which will by Allah's will prove all of
the claims of the Qur'an regarding teh Bible. This will include many
prophesies of Mohammed (pbuh) in the Bible, and proofof how a small segment of
the unscrupulous few managed to modifythe religion of God for their personal
gain. Donald E. Blais wrote: Neither
Christian nor secular scholars consider the purported Gospel of Barnabas to be
historically authentic... Encyclopedia Americana, 1990 BARNABAS,
[...]
A number of works have been attributed to St. Barnabas:
the Acts of Barnabas, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Gospel of Barnabas.
In addition, Tertullian attributed to him the Epistle to the Hebrews but
this is more a guess than a tradition. [...] There was also a Gospel of
Barnabas, referred to by several ancient authors, especially in the "Decree
of Gelasius" (c. 500 A.D.); but there is no means of knowing what its
contents or character were. However, there is in existence a long Italian
manuscript under this title, written from the Muslim standpoint and containing
a strong element of Gnosticism. It was edited in 1907 by Lonsdale and Laura
(M. Roberts) Ragg, who held it to be the work of an apostate from Christianity,
sometime between the 13th and 16th century. Like most of the patristic and
medieval apocrypha, the work is highly imaginative, a work of fiction rather
than of historical tradition, but it has a strongly marked ethical emphasis.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th ed.) has an entry for the Letter of Barnabas
[Epistle] but no mention of the Gospel of Barnabas. Donald E. Blais
Internet: blais@utexas.edu UTexas Computation Center UUCP:
uunet!cs.utexas.edu!blais Austin, TX 78712 Phone: +1 512-471-6387
+1 512-471-3241 Mr. Donald Blais Thank your for your comments regarding the
"Gospel of Barnabas", however, I ask you to consider the following:
It seems amazing to me how people allow others to tell them what is and isn't a
genuine Gospel without asking for any proof whatsoever. The vast majority of
Christian scholars today (except for a minority of the most adamant of
conservatives) readily acknowledge today that the *MAJORITY* of
the books f the Bible were not written by the claimed authors. "John"
was not written by the apostle John, "Matthew" was not written by
Matthew...etc. The supporting evidence of their claims is readily available to
us in our own Bibles. For example, these Christian scholars point to the verse
of Matthew 9:9 as one of the countless pieces of internal evidence which
prove this fact. We read: "...And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (Jesus)
saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (Jesus)
saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME (Jesus) and HE (Matthew) arose, and
followed HIM (Jesus)".
It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that neither Jesus (pbuh)
nor his apostle Matthew wrote this. Right at this moment, I could probably
give you at least ten more pages of such proof for the rest of the books of the
Bible, however, I am reserving this information for a future post in order that
the current sequence of articles may better complement each other and build
upon each other. Stay tuned for more (by Allah's will). Most Christians will
tell you that the books of the current Bible are "inspired" books. That
God "inspired" them to men and they wrote them. They tell you that all
other books are "apocryphal" lies. They will also apply this sweeping
judgment to the "Gospel of Barnabas" too without studying either of the
two claims. All biblical "versions" of the Bible prior to revised
version of 1881 were dependent upon the "ANCIENT COPIES" (those dating
between five to six hundred years after Jesus). The revisers of the Revised
Standard Version (RSV) 1952 were the first biblical scholars to have access to
the "MOST ancient copies" which date fully three to four hundred years
after Christ. This RSV Bible was compiled by THIRTY TWO Biblical
scholars of the highest eminence backed by FIFTY cooperating
denomination. In the preface of the RSV 1971 we find the following reason for
their complete rehash of the Bible:
"...Yet the King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS.".
They go on to note: "...That these defects are SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS
as to call for revision"(emphasis added) The Jehovah's witnesses in their
"AWAKE" Magazine dated 8th September 1957 published the following
headline:
"50,000 errors in the Bible" wherein they say "..there are probably
50,000 errors in the Bible....errors which have crept into the Bible
text....50,000 such serious errors.......".
After all of this, however, they go on to say: "...as a whole the
Bible is accurate". If we were to obtain a copy of the RSV Bible by
Collins, we would find that the authors say that the author of "Kings"
is "Unknown". If they knew it to be the word of God they would have
undoubtedly attributed it to him. Rather, they have chosen to honestly say
"Author....Unknown". But if the author is unknown then why attribute it
to God??. How can it then be claimed to have been "inspired"?.
Continuing, we read that the book of Isaiah is "Mainly credited to Isaiah.
Parts may have been written by others".
Ecclesiastics: "Author. Doubtful, but commonly assigned to Solomon".
Ruth: "Author. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel". and on and
on. As I said, I could go on and on and on........ So how were the current
selection of books recognized to be truly "inspired"?. Did Jesus (pbuh)
hand them to his followers and command them to follow them?. Did the apostles
do so?. Did their children do so?. Before answering please research your own
Christian literature. Go to your local Collage library and look it up. I am
sure you will be quite amazed at what you will find. Let me give you a small
sample of how the "inspired" books of the Bible were incorporated into
the Christian "canon" of the Bible: During the time of the apostles and
their followers for about a period of three hundred years, the "Bible"
as we currently know it did not exist. Jesus (pbuh), the apostles, and their
children for many generations new nothing of this "Bible". During this
time period, people used to band around a certain apostle or one of their
followers and would usually have with them a "Gospel" written by this
apostle. This would be their "Bible" to live and die with. In the city
of Nicaea (modern: Iznik, Turkey), in the year 325 AD, a great conference of
Christian theologians and religious scholars was convened under the order of
the Emperor Constantine to examine and define the status of these countless
Christian Gospels. After thorough investigation it was decided that the Epistle
of Jude was genuine and believable. The rest of these books were declared
doubtful. This was explicitly mentioned by Saint Jerome in his introduction to
his book. St. Jerome, of course, was a Christian scholar and a great
philosopher. He was born in 340 A.D. He translated the Bible into Latin. He was
a famous bibliographer and wrote many books on the Bible. Before the year 325
AD., it is known that the Gospel of Barnabas (which confirms most of the claims
of the Qur'an) was accepted as canonical in the churches of Alexandria. It is
known to have been circulated in the first two centuries after Christ (pbuh)
from the writings of Iraneus (130-200AD). After this council, four Gospels
were selected out of a minimum of three hundred available and the rest,
including the Gospel of Barnabas, were ordered utterly destroyed. All Gospels
written in Hebrew were also ordered completely destroyed. In the year 364 AD,
another council was held in Liodicia for the same purpose. This conference of
Christian scholars and theologians not only confirmed the decision of the
council of Nicaea regarding the authenticity of the Epistle of Jude but also
declared that the following six books must also be added to the list of genuine
and believable books: The Book of Esther, The Epistle Of James, The Second
Epistle of Peter, The Second and Third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Paul to
the Hebrews. This conference pronounced their decision to the public. The
book of Revelations, however, remained out of the list of the acknowledged
books in both the councils. In 397 another great conference was held called
the Council of Carthage. Augustine, the great Christian scholar, was among the
one hundred and twenty six learned participants. The members of this council
confirmed the decisions of the two previous Councils and also added the
following books to the list of the divine books: The Book of the Songs of
Solomon, The Book of Tobit, The Book of Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, and The First
and Second Books of Maccabees. At the same time the members of this
council decided that the book of Baruch was a part of the book of Jeremiah
because Baruch was the deputy of Jeremiah. Therefore they did not include the
name of this book separately in the list. Three more conferences were held
after this in Trullo, Florence and finally Trent (1545-63). The members of
these meetings confirmed the decision of the Council of Carthage. The last two
councils, however, wrote the name of the book of Baruch separately. After
these councils nearly all the books which had previously been doubtful among
Christians were now included in the list of acknowledged books. The status of
these books remained unchanged until the Protestant Reformation. The
Protestants repudiated the decisions of the councils and declared that there
are only 66 truly "inspired" books of God, and not 73 as claimed by the
Catholics. The following books were to be rejected: The Book of Baruch, The
Book of Tobit, The Letter of Jude, The Song of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, The
First and Second Books of Maccabees.
They excluded these books from the list of acknowledged books. The
Protestants also rejected the decision of their forbears regarding some
chapters of the book of Esther. This book consists of 16 chapters. They decided
that the first nine chapters and three verses from chapter 10 were to be
rejected. They based their decision on the following six reasons: 1
These works were considered to be false even in the original Hebrew and
Chaldaean languages which were no longer available. 2 The Jews did not
acknowledge them as revealed books. 3 All the Christians have not
acknowledged them as believable. 4 Jerome said that these books were
not reliable and were insufficient to prove and support the doctrines of the
faith. 5 Klaus has openly said that these books were recited but not in
every place. 6 Eusebius specifically said in chapter 22 of his fourth
book that these books have been tampered with, and changed. In particular the
Second Book of Maccabees. It now becomes apparent that books which had been
lost in the original and which only existed in translation were erroneously
acknowledged by thousands of theologians as divine revelation. This state of
affairs leads a non-Christian reader to distrust the unanimous decisions of
Christian scholars of both the Catholic and the Protestant persuasions. The
followers of Catholic faith still believe in these books in blind pursuance of
their forebears. It is a prerequisite of believing in a certain book as
divinely revealed that it is proved through infallible arguments that the book
in question was revealed through a prophet and that it has been conveyed to us
precisely in the same order without any change through an uninterrupted chain
of narrators. It is not at all sufficient to attribute a book to a certain
prophet on the basis of suppositions and conjectures. Unsupported assertions
made by one or a few sects of people should not be, and cannot be, accepted in
this connection. We have already seen how Catholic and Protestant scholars
differ on the question of the authenticity of some of these books. There are
yet more books of the Bible which have been rejected by Christians. They
include the Book of Revelation, the Book of Genesis, the Book of Ascension,
the Book of Mysteries, the Book of Testament and the Book of Confession
which are all ascribed to the Prophet Moses. Similarly a fourth Book of
Ezra is claimed to be from the Prophet Ezra and a book concerning Isaiah's
ascension and revelation are ascribed to him. In addition to the known book of
Jeremiah, there is another book attributed to him. There are numerous sayings
which are claimed to be from the Prophet Habakkuk. There are many songs which
are said to be from the Prophet Solomon. There are more than 70 books, other
than the present ones, of the new Testament, which are ascribed to Jesus, Mary,
the apostles, and their disciples. The Christians of this age have claimed
that these books are false and are forgeries. The Greek Church, Catholic church
and the Protestant Church are unanimous on this point. Similarly the Greek
Church claims that the third book of Ezra is a part of the Old Testament and
believes it to have been written by the Prophet Ezra while the Protestant and
Catholic Churches have declared it false and fabricated. Groliers encyclopedia
says under the heading "New Testament, canon":
"The process by which the canon of the New Testament was formed began in the
2nd century, probably with a collection of ten letters of Paul. Toward the end
of that century, Irenaeus argued for the unique authority of the portion of the
Canon called the Gospels. Acceptance of the other books came gradually. The
church in Egypt used more than the present 27 books, and the Syriac-speaking
churches fewer. The question of an official canon became urgent during the 4th
century. It was mainly through the influence of Athanasius, bishop of
Alexandria, and because Jerome included the 27 books in his Latin version of
the Bible called the Vulgate, that the present canon came to be accepted.".
As mentioned above, even when a book is claimed to be truly "inspired"
we still find that the Church cannot say with 100% assuredness WHO wrote this
"inspired" book. As mentioned there, the authors of the RSV Bible by
Collins say that the author of "Kings" is "Unknown", the book of
Isaiah is "Mainly credited to Isaiah. Parts may have been written by
others".
Ecclesiastics: "Author. Doubtful, but commonly assigned to Solomon".
Ruth: "Author. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel".
and on and on. Is this how a truly unbiased mind defines "inspired
by God"?. You be the judge. Let us now talk about the "Gospel of
Barnabas": The choice of the present four Gospels (including the
writings of St. Paul who is credited with single-handedly writing the majority
of the books of the New Testament) was imposed in the conference of Nicea 325
A.D. under the auspices of the Pagan Emperor Constantine for political reasons.
Literally hundreds of gospels and religious writings were considered
"Apocrypha" (which literally means "hidden from the people" and not
"doubtful" as some people claim) and destroyed. Some of these were written by
disciples of Jesus (pbuh), and not disciples of disciples who had never met
Jesus (pbuh), such as Paul. If they were not more authentic than the current
selection then they were at least of equal authenticity. Some of these are
still available, such as the "Gospel of Barnabas" and the "Shepherd
of Hermas" which agree with the Qur'an and even mention Mohammad (pbuh) by
name. Modern discoveries such as the discovery of the dead sea scrolls (Qumran
scrolls) have only confirmed the authenticity of the Gospel of Barnabas. There
are striking similarities between the two. If the Gospel of Barnabas were, as
alleged, a forgery, then it would not be so rich in the Essenic terminology of
Jesus' time. The Greek gospels are very poor in this regard. Since the dead
sea scrolls were not discovered until 1947, therefore, no forger prior to the
discovery and translation of the scrolls could have known Essenic terminology
in such abundance when virtually nothing was known about them. The Greek
gospels in the current Bible are compiled from "ancient manuscripts"
dating fully three and four hundred years after the time of Jesus (pbuh).
There is not even a single "ancient copy" available today written in the
same language the alleged authors spoke in. The Dead sea scrolls, however,
coincide historically with the time of John the Baptist. They were discovered
alongside the most ancient copy of the Old Testament available today. The
reason the Gospel of Barnabas is rejected owes more to matters of faith than to
it's historical authenticity. This is because in it Jesus (pbuh) explicitly
refutes the claim that he is God. This is considered heresy, and thus, the
Gospel of Barnabas is labeled "a forgery". A very insightful study into
the similarities between these two works and the authenticity of the Gospel of
Barnabas can be found in the book "The dead sea scrolls, the Gospel of
Barnabas, and the New Testament" By M.A. Yusseff (ISBN 0 89259 061 0). In
an effort to defend the teachings of the current Greek gospels, Mr. F.F. Bruce
has the following to say in his book "The New Testament documents. Are they
reliable?":
"It is worth mentioning here that striking affinities of thought and
language have been recognized between the Gospel and the Qumran texts. These
affinities must not be exaggerated; the Qumran literature comes no where near
presenting us with such a figure as the Jesus of this Gospel (John)". Any
Christian scholar of Christian history will readily confirm that after the
famous council of Nicea (325 AD), the church of St. Paul (The Roman Catholic
Church) selected out of the over three hundred Gospels in their possession the
four that most closely conformed to their doctrines. All others, including the
Gospel of Barnabas, were ordered completely destroyed. They also ruled that
all Gospels written in Hebrew were to be destroyed. An edict was issued that
anyone found in possession of an unauthorized Gospel would be put to death.
Countless numbers of Christians were then systematically killed as heretics and
burned at the stake if they maintained their belief in the divine Unity of God
and did not conform to the innovative teachings of Paul. It is well known that
this practice continued until at least the year 1616 AD. Well then, how did
the Gospel of Barnabas reach us?. It is well known and recorded that Pope
Damasus (304-384 AD.) issued a decree that the Gospel of Barnabas should not be
read. This decree was supported by Gelasus, Bishop of Caesaria who died in 395
AD. Pope Demasus, however, did secure a personal copy of the Gospel of
Barnabas for himself in 383 AD. and placed it in his private library. Many
decrees make mention of the Gospel of Barnabas, such as the decree of the
Western churches in 382AD, Pope Innocent in 465A.D., the Glasian Decree of
496A.D., Pope Hormisdas, and it is mentioned in the Stichometry of Niceophorus.
There are many others who made note of this Gospel throughout history or
obtained their own copies. Among the first Christians was a man named Iranaeus
(130-200 AD) who was among the followers of the teachings of the apostles and,
like the first Christians before him, a believer in the Divine unity and not in
the Pauline Trinity. He was murdered in 200AD for his outspokenness against
the Pauline doctrine. Iranaeus quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas
in his writings. In the sixteenth century AD. a close friend of Pope Sextus
(1589-1590), called Fra Marino, became extremely interested in the writings of
Iranaeus. One day he was invited to visit the Pope and lunch with him. After
eating with him, the Pope became drowsy and fell asleep. Father Marino took to
browsing through the various books and manuscripts in the private library of
Pope Sextus and happened upon an Italian translation of the Gospel of Barnabas.
Father Marino concealed it in his sleeve and left the Vatican with it. This
manuscript passed through many hands until it ended up in Amsterdam. In 1713
J.E. Cramer, the councilor of the King of Prussia presented it to the famous
connoisseur of books, Prince Eugene of Savoy. In 1738 it was incorporated into
the Hofbibliothek in Vienna where it now rests. Only the popularity of this
copy of the Gospel of Barnabas saved it from the fate of most other copies.
Most copies of the Gospel of Barnabas had a tendency of mysteriously
disappearing into oblivion. This was the case with a Spanish copy which
mysteriously disappeared from the collage library in England around the same
time period as well as all but two copies of the English translation of this
Gospel which was published in 1907 by Mr. and Mrs. Ragg. One copy is housed in
the library of Congress in Washington. The other is located in the British
museum. So, the Gospel of Barnabas was discovered hidden away of all places
*in the Christian's own Vatican*. The Popes themselves new of it's
existence but were hiding it ("apocrypha"= "hidden from the masses"). To this
day it has never left the hands of the Christians. It remains in the Christian
Hofbibliothek in Vienna for all to see. Never has it fallen into the hands of
Muslims: 1) Why then does it confirm practically every single one of
the claims of the Qur'an?. 2) Why does it confirm that Jesus (pbuh) is
not God nor his son, as the Qur'an does?. 3) Why does it prophesise that
mankind will call Jesus (pbuh) the "Son of God" and severely caution
them from doing so, as the Qur'an says?. 4) Why does it confirm that
Jesus (pbuh) was not killed by the Jews but raised by God, as the Qur'an says?.
5) Why does it prophesise the coming of a new prophet after Jesus
(pbuh)?. Why does it claim that the coming prophet will come from the
descendants of Ishmael(the Arabs) and not Isaac(the Jews)?. 6) Why does
it claim that the Jews had been changing their book from ancient times, as the
Qur'an says?. 7) Why does it have the apostle Barnabas himself claiming
that Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) had corrupted the religion of Jesus (pbuh) by
nullifying the commandments, and by calling Jesus (pbuh) the "son of
God", and that he (Paul) was leading the masses astray from the true
religion of God?. Why does it confirm virtually every single claim of the
Qur'an even though it was written long before the coming of Mohammed (pbuh) and
has remained in the possession of the Church since?. Is it all just an amazing
coincidence?. Why has the Vatican gone to such lengths to hide it over
thecenturies?. The Gospel of Barnabas is not the only Gospel which confirms
these matters. There is also "The Shepherd of Hermas". Once again it
confirms the teachings of the Qur'an, and once again, it was destroyed and
hidden from the masses. Christian scholars call the Gospels of Matthew, Mark,
and Luke, the "Synoptic" (One eyed) Gospels. This is because they all
seem to have had access to a common source document they were working from when
they wrote their Gospels (unlike the "Gospel of John" which exhibits completely
different characteristics from theses three). This source document is called
'Q'. Now they are beginning to recognize that the alleged authors are not the
true authors (see future posts). Similarly, countless verses of the Gospel of
John, as well as other historical discrepancies, also go to show that John did
not write the Gospel of John. Some scholars are now beginning to suspect that
'Q' may indeed be the Gospel of Barnabas. It is much larger than the others,
by all measures it is an authentic Gospel (see chapter 11), and it contains all
of the stories contained in these three Gospels without the contradictions
found therein.
Finally, I would like to thank you Mr. Blais for your thoughts and foryour
giving me the opportunity to exhibit these matters.SincerelyMisheal
Al-Kadhi___________________________maalkadh@mailbox.syr.edu
This will by Allah's will be the sixth in a series of articles which will prove
all of the claims of the Qur'an regarding the Bible and exhibit how a small
band of unscrupulous men managed to change the word of Allah after the
departure of Jesus (peace be upon him) in addition to showing the traces of the
original message of Jesus (pbuh) still remain to this day, such as the
prophesies of Mohammed (pbuh) in the Bible which have been presented in the
previous five parts.
May Allah almighty guide us all to His true message.
Dear Mr. Katz
I don't think I did justice to your question about the 50,000 errors. First of
all, please notice that what you are quotingis a preamble to a discussion. It
claims that this will (in this series of articles) be proven. However, if you
can not wait, I will respect your request and send you this very smallsampling
for you further study. Please forgive it's "shortness".
While reading this list please bear in mind that even the preservers of the
very ancient Old Testament (the Jews) claim that EVERY WORD AND EVERY
LETTER of their books was painstakingly COUNTED and RECORDED
so that even scribal error would be physical impossibility. I am willing to
stand by the Qur'an and every word and every syllable. I am also willing to
stand by theintended meanings of the verses of the Qur'an and not attempt to
"interpret" them to have "hidden" meanings totally in oposition
to the obvious meanings by Allah's will.
Please do not take this as a confrontation. This was not my intent. The title
of the articles was chosen in order to draw attention to them and not to be
disrespectful. My goal is to show you some of what your own scholars have
written quite extensively about today. My goal is not to be disresrectful of
your beliefs or knowledge, but only to show that there is such a thing as a
person who would dare to change the word of God for his personal gain. The
details of these claims can be found in abundance in your own collage library.
May God almighty guide both of us to His true message and to not follow the
words of mankind.
Misheal Al-Kadhi
Please bear in mind that the following is only a small sampling of the
contradictions your own scholars now recognise:
1Acts 9:26-29 and Acts 26:19-21(Paul is saved)Galatians 1:15-22(Was he
really?)2Acts 9:7(heard voice, saw no man)Acts 22:9(no voice, saw
light)3Matt.10:2-4,Mark3:16-19(Jesus apostles' names, the twelfth is
Lebbeus who's surname was Thaddeus)Luke 6:14-16 (apostles' names now different,
the twelfth is Judas the brother of James)4Matthew 27:5 (Judas hangs
himself)Acts 1:18(Judas falls headlong,his bowels gush)5Matthew
11:13-14,17:13(Elias is John the Baptist)John 1:21(Elias is not John the
Baptist)6Luke 3:23-31+Romans 1:3("according to the flesh" 41 men between
Jesus and David)Matthew 1:6-16 + Romans 1:3 ("according to the flesh" 26 men
between Jesus and David)7Matthew 21:12-18(temple before passing fig
tree)Mark 11:12-15 (temple After passing fig tree)8Mark 15:25 (crucified
by third hour)John 19:14 (not crucified by sixth hour)9Matthew 27:32,
Luke 23:26, Mark 15:21 (Simon carries the cross)John 19:17 (Jesus carries the
cross)10Mark 15:23 (gave wine with myrrh to drink)Matthew27:34(Gave
vinegar with gall to drink)11Matthew 1:16(Jesus son of Joseph son of
Jacob)Luke 3:23(Jesus son of Joseph son of Heli)121 Corinthians
15:5(Jesus seen by twelve)Matthew 28:16(Jesus seen by eleven)131
Chronicles 7:6(Three sons), 1Chronicles 8:1 (Five sons),
Genesis 46:21 (ten sons) (How many sons did Benjamin have and what are their
names?)142 Samuel 24:1(The Lord moved David)1 Chronicles 21:1(The Devil
moved David)15Matthew 20:20-21 (The mother of the Zaebedee's sons makes
the request)Mark 10:35-37 (The Zebedee's sons make the request
themselves)16John 20:1, Matthew 28:1, Luke 24:10, Mark 16:1(four
different accounts of who visited the grave of Jesus)17John 20:12,
Matthew 28:2, Luke 24:3, Mark 16:5(four different accounts of who saw what at
Jesus' grave)18Luke 24:9-10 (three women + speak)Mark 16:1-8(three
different women + afraid)19John 5:31(my witness is not true)John 8:14(My
record is true)20Matthew 27:11-14 (Jesus said "Thou sayest" and NOTHING
ELSE)John 18:33-38 (Jesus says many things and answers many questions in
detail)21Matthew 8:5: The centurion came in person.Luke 7:3 The
centurion sent elders of the Jews22Matthew 26:7 Poured ointment on
Jesus' head.John 12:3 Poured ointment on Jesus' feet.23Romans 5:12 Adam
alone was responsible for the "initial sin".1 Timothy 2:14 Eve alone, and not
Adam, was responsible for the "initial sin"24Matthew 28:7, 10, 16:20,
Mark 16:7. Jesus (pbuh) appeared in Galilee.
But Acts 1:4 commands them not to leave JerusalemLuke 24:13-52, Acts 1:1-12.
Jesus (pbuh) appeared in Jerusalem.25Matthew 2 (" Jesus was born in
Bethlehem. Mary (pbuh) and Joseph took him to Egypt till Harod died. Then
they went to Nazareth").Luke 2("Jesus was born in Bethleham. After Mary (pbuh)
delivered Jesus "And when the days of her purification according to the law of
Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem". After the sacrifice
"they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth". His parents went to
Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. When he was twelve years
old, he stayed behind for three days without the knowledge of his
mother.26Mark 11 (Jesus, spoke with the elders of the Jews on the third
day after his arrival in Jerusalem)Matthew 21 (Jesus, spoke with the elders of
the Jews on the second day after his arrival)27Matthew 8 (Jesus healed a
leper, then the servant of the centurion, then healed Simon's wife's
mother)Mark 4,5,7 (healed Simon's wife's mother, then a the leper, then the
servant of the centurion)28Matthew 20:30-34 (Jesus healed two blind men
after leaving Jericho)Mark 10:46-52 (Jesus healed one blind man called
Bartimaeus after leaving Jericho)29Matthew 9:18 (the ruler came and said
"My daughter is even now dead")Mark 5:22-23 (the ruler said his daughter is
near death. After they came near his house, someone came out and told him that
his daughter had died while he was away)30Matthew 8:28 (When Jesus came
into the country of the Gergesenes, he met two men possessed | | |
